Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 15.05.2026, 9C_224/2026
Facts
A taxpayer filed a request with the Schlichtungsstelle (conciliation authority) of the Catholic Church of the Canton of Thurgau, seeking exemption from future church tax payments and a refund of taxes paid since 2016. The conciliation authority declared the request inadmissible, arguing that the collection of church tax falls under the jurisdiction of municipal and cantonal tax authorities. This decision was upheld successively by the Catholic Church's appeals commission—which also noted that the taxpayer's request constituted a formal declaration of withdrawal from the Church—and then by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau. The taxpayer then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the Administrative Court's decision and the referral of the case for a substantive review. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that challenging tax liability, including church tax, must be done exclusively through the legal channels provided for in the ordinary tax assessment procedure. Once a tax assessment decision has become final, it can only be challenged through the extraordinary procedure of revision. Revision is subject to strict conditions, both under Thurgau cantonal law (art. 179a of the Tax Act of the Canton of Thurgau, StG/TG) and under harmonized federal law (art. 51 of the Federal Act on the Harmonization of Direct Taxes, LHID). (consid. 3.3)
Revision is notably excluded when the applicant invokes facts or evidence that they could have presented during the ordinary procedure by exercising due diligence. The authority to rule on a request for tax revision belongs exclusively to the tax authorities, not to Church bodies. Furthermore, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court must be precisely reasoned, particularly when a violation of fundamental rights is alleged (art. 106 para. 2 LTF). A mere assertion, for example regarding the allegedly excessive nature of court costs, is insufficient to meet this requirement. (consid. 2.2, 3.3, 4)
Application to the Case
The appellant argues that the question of his membership in the Church constitutes a preliminary status issue that the lower courts should have resolved. The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It notes that the appellant's request seeks the refund of taxes established in final tax assessment decisions. The appellant should have and could have challenged his liability for church tax during each annual assessment procedure by asserting that he was not a member of the Church. By failing to do so, he allowed the tax assessment decisions to become final. (consid. 3.2, 3.3)
Consequently, the path of revision is closed, as the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by omitting to raise this argument during the ordinary procedure. Even if his membership in the Church had never been established, a revision would not be possible. Therefore, there is no current legal interest in resolving the preliminary question of his Church membership status, and the lower court correctly left it open. The Church's conciliation authority also correctly declared itself incompetent, as tax matters fall under the jurisdiction of state authorities. As for future liability, it is settled by the fact that his request was interpreted as a declaration of withdrawal from the Church. (consid. 3.1, 3.3)
The Federal Supreme Court also dismisses the appellant's grievance regarding the costs of the cantonal proceedings. The appellant merely labeled them as "disproportionate" without providing substantive reasoning, failing to demonstrate how the amount set, which complies with the cantonal legal framework, would be arbitrary. Similarly, his request for legal costs is rejected due to a lack of reasoning and because he was unsuccessful in the cantonal instance. (consid. 4)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court deems the appeal manifestly ill-founded. It dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible, via the simplified procedure (Art. 109 para. 2 let. a LTF). The court costs, set at 800 francs, are to be borne by the appellant. (recital 5)
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
