Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 11.06.2026, 9C_315/2026, 9C_316/2026
Facts
Two sisters, co-owners of three undeveloped plots of land in the canton of Basel-Landschaft, sold these properties to third parties. The sales contracts stipulated an obligation for the buyers to enter into construction contracts with a specific company, C.________ GmbH, for future construction, as building permits had already been issued. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
The tax administration of the canton of Basel-Landschaft (hereinafter: the tax authority) assessed the transfer tax based not only on the sale price of the land but also on the cost of the planned construction work (the construction price). The sisters (hereinafter: the taxpayers) challenged this calculation basis, arguing that only the price of the undeveloped land should be subject to tax. (consid. 1.3, 1.4)
After their objection was rejected, the taxpayers appealed to the Cantonal Tax Court. The court not only upheld the tax authority's position but also worsened the taxpayers' situation (reformatio in peius) by including VAT on the construction price in the calculation basis. (consid. 1.5)
Upon appeal by the taxpayers, the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft overturned the Tax Court's decision. It ruled that cantonal law only permitted the addition of the land price and the construction price if the seller had a personal or economic link with the construction company, which was not the case here. (consid. 1.6)
The tax authority then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the Cantonal Court's judgment. It invoked its standing to appeal under Art. 89 para. 1 and, alternatively, underArt. 89 para. 2 let. c of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). (consid. 1.7)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility requirements of an appeal ex officio and with full power of review, in particular the standing to appeal (Art. 29 para. 1 and 95 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF)). The appellant must demonstrate their standing if it is not self-evident. (considerations 2.2, 2.2.1)
The central question is whether a cantonal tax authority, and by extension the canton itself, has standing to appeal a decision from its own higher cantonal court in a matter governed exclusively by non-harmonized cantonal law, such as transfer tax. (considerations 2.2.2, 2.3.2)
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the principle prohibiting "intra-organizational proceedings." According to established case law, disputes between different authorities within the same canton (in this case, the tax administration versus the Cantonal Court) should not, in principle, be brought before the Federal Supreme Court. This restriction is particularly strict when the dispute concerns the interpretation of non-harmonized cantonal law, as the federal legislature has deliberately refrained from granting a general right of appeal to cantonal governments in such cases. (considerations 2.3.3.2, 2.3.3.3, 2.3.3.4)
The standing of a public entity is governed byArt. 89 LTF. Art. 89 para. 2 LTF provides for specific cases of standing, while Art. 89 para. 1 LTF serves as the general clause. In the absence of a federal legal provision granting a right of appeal (Art. 89 para. 2 let. d LTF), one must first examine the specific standing under Art. 89 para. 2 let. c LTF, and then, if that is not met, the general clause of Art. 89 para. 1 LTF. (consideration 2.3.1)
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court first examines the tax authority's standing under Art. 89 para. 2 let. c LTF. This provision grants standing to municipalities and other public law entities that invoke the violation of constitutional guarantees (e.g., municipal autonomy). Case law excludes the possibility for a canton to rely on this provision to challenge a decision by one of its own judicial authorities. Furthermore, a claim of arbitrariness (Art. 9 of the Constitution) in the application of the law does not constitute a "guarantee" within the meaning of this provision. Standing based on Art. 89 para. 2 let. c LTF is therefore dismissed. (considerations 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3)
Next, the Federal Supreme Court analyzes standing under the general clause of Art. 89 para. 1 LTF. According to restrictive case law, a public entity may only invoke this provision if it is affected by the challenged decision in a manner similar to a private individual, or if its overriding public interests are significantly impaired. In this case, the tax authority failed to demonstrate how either of these conditions was met. The mere fact of having been a party to the cantonal proceedings is insufficient to establish the standing of a public authority before the Federal Supreme Court. (considerations 2.5.1, 2.5.2)
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the tax authority lacks standing, neither under a specific provision nor under the general clause of Art. 89 LTF. The principle prohibiting intra-organizational proceedings prevents the Federal Supreme Court from adjudicating a dispute internal to the Canton of Basel-Landschaft regarding the interpretation of its own non-harmonized tax law. (consideration 2.6)
Issue
The proceedings are joined. The appeals filed by the tax administration of the canton of Basel-Landschaft are declared inadmissible due to a lack of standing. The court costs, totaling 5,000 CHF, are to be borne by the canton of Basel-Landschaft. No legal costs are awarded to the taxpayers, as no exchange of pleadings was ordered. (Ruling 1, 2, 3, 4)