TF, 04.23.2026, 9C_316/2025
Facts
Association A., whose statutory objectives include the defense of quality of life, sustainable development, the environment, and heritage within the territory of the municipality of U. (GE) and its surroundings, benefited from a temporary tax exemption from 2015 to 2021. Following an amendment to its statutes in 2021, the Association requested the renewal of its exemption for federal direct tax (IFD) and cantonal and communal tax (ICC). The Geneva cantonal tax administration rejected this request, deeming that the association no longer met the requirements. Upon appeal, the Administrative Court of First Instance (TAPI) granted the exemption. However, following an appeal by the tax administration, the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva overturned the TAPI judgment, ruling that the Association did not pursue objectives of pure public utility. The Association then filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court. (Facts A, B, and C)
Law
According toArt. 56 let. g LIFD, legal entities pursuing public service or pure public utility objectives are exempt from tax, provided that their profit and capital are exclusively and irrevocably dedicated to these objectives. Jurisprudence has established three general conditions for this exemption: the exclusive allocation of funds to public utility objectives, the irrevocability of this allocation, and effective activity in accordance with the statutes. (consid. 4.1, 4.2)
In addition to these general conditions, pursuing a "pure public utility" objective requires meeting two specific conditions: the exercise of an activity of general interest in favor of an open circle of recipients and disinterestedness. General interest implies an activity that benefits the community as a whole, rather than a restricted circle of beneficiaries (such as the members of an association). The condition of disinterestedness requires an altruistic activity, a sacrifice for the benefit of third parties, and in principle excludes economic or entrepreneurial objectives. (consid. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5)
The Federal Supreme Court grants cantonal authorities a certain margin of appreciation to determine whether an objective is of public utility, particularly in borderline cases, due to their better knowledge of local circumstances. The exemption conditions for the ICC are harmonized and identical to those for the IFD. (consid. 4.6, 8)
Application to the specific case
The dispute concerned the Association's compliance with the two specific conditions of activity of general interest for an open circle and disinterestedness. The cantonal Court of Justice had denied these conditions, considering that the Association's action was predominantly focused on defending the interests of the inhabitants of a specific municipality and on shaping public opinion (influence on construction projects), which took precedence over its landscape defense activities. (consid. 3, 5)
The Federal Supreme Court does not follow this reasoning. Regarding the condition of an open circle of recipients, it notes that the Association's actions, such as the protection of the B. valley, the maintenance of D. park, or planning projects affecting other municipalities, benefit a public that extends far beyond just the members of the association or the inhabitants of the municipality of U.________. The Association's activity, centered on the protection of landscape and heritage, is therefore indeed of general interest. (consid. 7.1)
The Federal Supreme Court then analyzes the condition of disinterestedness. It rules that the use of "political means" (oppositions, taking positions in public debate) to achieve general interest objectives such as environmental protection is a legitimate democratic tool. Such an activity only becomes "interested" if political influence is the primary goal, which is not the case here. The Association's activity is judged to be primarily altruistic, with its actions benefiting an open circle and its members acting on a voluntary basis according to the statutes. The condition of disinterestedness is therefore also met. (consid. 7.2)
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that this is not a borderline case justifying broad discretion for the cantonal authority and that the conditions for an exemption for pure public utility are met for both the IFD and the ICC. (consid. 7.3, 8)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court allows the Association's appeal. It annuls the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Republic and Canton of Geneva. The case is remanded to the cantonal tax administration to issue a new decision granting the Association the exemption from federal direct tax and cantonal and communal taxes starting from the 2022 tax period. Legal costs are charged to the Canton of Geneva. (consid. 1, 2, 4)
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
