TF, 08.06.2026, 9C_255/2026
Facts
A taxpayer resided in Geneva from February to December 2018, during which time she received earned income of CHF 24,000 and maintenance payments of CHF 4,532. In 2021, the Geneva Cantonal Tax Administration (AFC) sent the 2018 tax assessments (IFD and ICC) to the wrong address. After cancelling these initial assessments, the AFC sent new ones to the correct address on July 14, 2025. (Facts, A.a, A.b)
The taxpayer filed an objection, which was rejected by the AFC on October 23, 2025. The tax authority held that periodic income received over part of the year must be annualized to determine the tax rate. Consequently, the taxable income was calculated based on a projected annual income of CHF 27,429 and an annual alimony payment of CHF 5,179. (Facts, A.b)
The taxpayer appealed this decision to the Administrative Court of First Instance (TAPI) and requested legal aid. Her request was rejected by the Civil Court, and subsequently by the Court of Justice of the Republic and Canton of Geneva on March 11, 2026, on the grounds that her appeal lacked any prospect of success. The taxpayer has appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the granting of legal aid for both the cantonal and federal proceedings. (Facts, B.a, B.b, C)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for granting free legal aid, as guaranteed byArt. 29 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution. A person is entitled to legal aid if they do not have sufficient resources and their case does not appear to be devoid of any chance of success. A case is considered to lack any chance of success when the prospects of winning are significantly lower than the risks of losing, to the point that a reasonable person with the necessary means would refrain from pursuing the proceedings. (Consideration 3.1)
The decision to refuse legal aid is an interlocutory decision that may be subject to an immediate appeal to the Federal Supreme Court (Art. 93 para. 1 let. a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF)). The avenue of appeal is determined by the main dispute, which in this case falls under public tax law. (Consideration 1.1, 1.2)
The Federal Supreme Court freely reviews violations of federal law, including constitutional rights. The application of cantonal law is reviewed only for arbitrariness (Art. 9 of the Federal Constitution). The examination is based on the facts established by the previous authority, unless they are manifestly inaccurate or established in violation of the law. (Consideration 2)
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines the appellant's arguments to determine whether the Court of Justice violated Art. 29 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution by deeming her tax appeal to be devoid of any chance of success. (Consideration 4.1)
First, the appellant cites the confusion created by the tax administration (erroneous notifications, withdrawn collection proceedings) to argue that her appeal is not devoid of any chance of success. The Federal Supreme Court dismisses this argument, clarifying that the merits of the dispute concern the taxation (determination of taxable elements) and not the collection of the tax. Procedural errors related to collection are therefore irrelevant to assessing the chances of success of the appeal regarding the taxation itself. (Consideration 4.2.1)
Second, the allegation of international double taxation, raised for the first time before the Federal Supreme Court, is deemed inadmissible because it was not presented before the cantonal appellate body (TAPI) and therefore cannot be used to assess the chances of success of that appeal. Likewise, the Federal Supreme Court confirms that the Court of Justice did not arbitrarily apply cantonal procedural law (Art. 326 para. 1 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by referral) by excluding new evidence produced late, as the appellant's justifications (difficulties in obtaining old and foreign documents) were insufficient. (consid. 4.2.1)
Third, regarding the taxation of maintenance payments, the appellant claims to have received them in 2019 rather than 2018. The Federal Supreme Court rules that the determining factor is the acquisition of a firm claim, which appears to be the case in 2018, making taxation for this period correct. The potential request for restitution by her ex-spouse is a new and unproven fact, and therefore irrelevant. (consid. 4.2.2)
Finally, regarding the loans that the appellant sought to deduct as extraordinary expenses, the Federal Supreme Court confirms the analysis of the cantonal court: these expenses were not proven and, in any event, debts for legal fees or housing are not among the social deductions authorized by tax law (art. 33 DBRA ; art. 28 LIPP). The appellant, moreover, implicitly admits the low probability of success for this claim. (consid. 4.2.2)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the Court of Justice did not violate the law by ruling that the taxpayer's appeal lacked any chance of success. The arguments raised were not capable of altering the contested tax assessment. Consequently, the refusal to grant legal aid for the proceedings before the TAPI is upheld. (consid. 5)
The appeal is dismissed. The request for legal aid for the federal proceedings is also dismissed, as the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset. No court costs are charged given the appellant's financial situation. (consid. 1, 2, 3 of the operative part)
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
