Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 03.12.2025, 9C_21/2025
Facts
A taxpayer (the appellant) filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich against a decision by the Tax Appeals Tribunal. He submitted an initial filing on October 9, 2024. Citing a computer error that resulted in an incomplete printout, he requested an extension on October 16, 2024, to submit a complete version. The court had already granted him a ten-day extension on October 14 to correct his filing. On October 28, 2024, after the appeal deadline had passed, the appellant submitted a new filing, backdated to October 9. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the first filing was insufficiently substantiated and the second was late. The appellant has appealed this dismissal to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
When a dismissal is challenged, the scope of the dispute before the Federal Supreme Court is limited to whether the lower court was correct in refusing to hear the appeal. An appeal must be sufficiently substantiated within the statutory time limit. A filing submitted after this deadline is inadmissible. Amending or supplementing an appeal after the deadline has expired is not permitted, as this would effectively result in an improper extension of the appeal period. The opportunity to correct a filing does not allow for substantive additions or modifications, but only for the rectification of formal defects.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the Administrative Court erred in its dismissal. The lower court found that the second filing, submitted on October 28, 2024, was not a mere correction of the original, but a substantially modified version (with different paragraphs, requests for relief, and evidence). It therefore concluded that the appellant had attempted to illicitly extend the appeal deadline and rejected the second filing as late.
The Federal Supreme Court upholds this reasoning. It notes that the appellant does not contest in
any detailed manner the modifications identified by the lower court. Furthermore, having discovered the alleged computer error before the deadline expired, he should have submitted a correct version immediately, which he failed to do.
Consequently, only the first filing of October 9, 2024, could be considered. The Federal Supreme Court confirms that it did not meet the requirements for substantiation and that the appellant did not validly utilize the extension granted to him for corrections. The dismissal is therefore legally sound. The same applies to the rejection of the request for legal aid due to a lack of merit and the dismissal of the recusal requests, which have become moot.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the public law appeal and declines to hear the subsidiary constitutional appeal. It waives court costs.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
