Federal Supreme Court, 25.11.2025, 9C_228/2025
Facts
The Zurich cantonal tax authority initiated tax back-payment and penalty proceedings against a taxpayer for the 2011 to 2018 tax periods. Following a partial dismissal of the proceedings, the authority issued a tax back-payment notice for 2016 and 2017 cantonal and municipal taxes, as well as for 2016 direct federal tax, due to undeclared bank assets. The penalty proceedings for tax evasion were suspended.
The taxpayer contested this decision, but his objection was rejected by the tax authority, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich. The taxpayer then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the cancellation of the back-payment proceedings and the deduction of travel expenses related to the management of his real estate abroad.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for initiating tax back-payment proceedings (Art. 151 para. 1 DBG ; § 160 StG/ZH). Uncollected tax may be recovered if a final assessment is incomplete due to facts or evidence that were unknown to the tax authority at the time of the ordinary assessment. These must be facts that already existed at the time but were not in the authority's file (newly discovered facts).
Regarding deductions, the Federal Supreme Court clarifies that, within the scope of back-payment proceedings, facts that reduce the tax burden can only be invoked if they are related to the grounds for the tax back-payment. Furthermore, for real estate held as private assets, only maintenance costs, costs for the restoration of newly acquired properties, insurance premiums, and administrative costs charged by third parties are deductible (Art. 32 para. 2 DBG).
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court examines two disputed issues.
First, it confirms the existence of a new fact justifying the tax back-payment. The taxpayer claimed to have already provided the documents relating to his undeclared bank assets during the ordinary assessment procedure. The Federal Supreme Court finds, as did the lower court, that the taxpayer provides no evidence for his allegations. On the contrary, it is established that he did not file any tax returns for the years 2016 and 2017 and that the documents in question were never transmitted to the tax authority before the initiation of the back-payment proceedings. The undeclared bank assets therefore constitute a new fact within the meaning of the law.
Second, the Federal Supreme Court rejects the deduction of CHF 11,950 in travel expenses requested by the taxpayer for the management of his properties abroad. It notes that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate how these expenses could be classified as maintenance costs or administrative costs charged by third parties, which are the only categories of deductible expenses for private real estate. The taxpayer neither sufficiently justified nor proved the validity of this deduction.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
