Federal Supreme Court, 29.06.2026, 9C_320/2026, 9C_329/2026
Facts
A taxpayer (hereinafter: the appellant) has an outstanding direct federal tax balance of CHF 4,359.85 for the 2022 tax year. After several unsuccessful collection attempts, the Aargau cantonal tax authority initiated debt enforcement proceedings, which resulted in the issuance of a certificate of shortfall on November 6, 2025. Deeming the tax claim to be at risk, the authority ordered a tax attachment (Sicherstellung) for the amount due on December 11, 2025, and issued an attachment order (Arrestbefehl), resulting in the freezing of all the appellant's bank accounts. (consid. 1.1)
The appellant filed an appeal against the attachment decision with the Special Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau, simultaneously requesting legal aid. The court rejected both the appeal and the request for legal aid. (consid. 1.2)
She subsequently appealed to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau, reiterating her request for legal aid. In an incidental decision dated May 4, 2026, the Administrative Court rejected the request for legal aid on the grounds that the appeal lacked any prospect of success and required an advance on costs of CHF 700. (consid. 1.3)
The appellant filed a request for reconsideration, which the Administrative Court declined to consider in a second decision dated May 11, 2026, primarily on the grounds that the appellant had not presented any new arguments. However, in that same decision, it reduced the advance on costs to CHF 650. (consid. 1.4)
The appellant filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against these two decisions, seeking primarily their annulment, the granting of legal aid for both the cantonal and federal proceedings, and the waiver of the requirement for an advance on costs. (consid. 1.5)
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court began by joining the two appeal proceedings (9C_320/2026 and 9C_329/2026) due to their related nature. (consid. 2.1)
It reiterated that a tax attachment decision based onArticle 169 of the Federal Act on Direct Federal Tax (DIFD) is classified as a provisional measure within the meaning ofArt. 98 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). Consequently, the Federal Supreme Court's power of review is limited to the violation of constitutional rights. This restricted scope of review applies not only to the main decision regarding the attachment, but also to ancillary decisions, such as those concerning legal aid. In this context, the relevant facts (existence of the claim, grounds for attachment) need only be rendered plausible by the tax authority, and the appellate courts, including the Federal Supreme Court, conduct a prima facie review. (consid. 2.2.2)
A decision denying legal aid is an interlocutory decision within the meaning ofArt. 93 FSCA. An immediate appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is only admissible if it may cause irreparable harm, which is the case when the refusal is accompanied by an obligation to pay an advance on costs under penalty of the main appeal being declared inadmissible. (consid. 2.2.3)
The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the interaction between the two challenged cantonal decisions. The second decision of May 11, 2026, although it does not address the merits of the reconsideration request, modifies the first decision of May 4, 2026, regarding the amount of the advance on costs. It therefore replaces the first decision on this specific point. However, the denial of legal aid, issued in the first decision and not reconsidered in the second, remains in effect. Both decisions therefore constitute valid objects of appeal. (consid. 2.2.4)
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court first declares the appeal against the decision of May 11, 2026, inadmissible. The appellant failed to demonstrate how the Administrative Court's refusal to address her reconsideration request was constitutionally untenable. She merely repeated her substantive arguments without formulating grievances that meet the qualified motivation requirements ofArt. 106 para. 2 FSCA, applicable in the context of an appeal against a provisional measure (Art. 98 FSCA). (consid. 3.1)
Regarding the decision of May 4, 2026, the appellant criticizes the Administrative Court for wrongly concluding that her appeal had no chance of success. She believes that the examination should not have been limited to the mere existence of a certificate of unsatisfied claim, but should have addressed the merits of the tax claim itself. The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. The appellant misunderstands the nature of the proceedings: the examination of the conditions for attachment is conducted on a prima facie basis. Consequently, the assessment of the chances of success in the context of the legal aid request is also subject to this limited scope of review. The Administrative Court was not required to conduct a full examination of the facts and the law, as the appellant claims. (consid. 3.2.2)
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant's argumentation is purely appellatory. She limits herself to asserting that her arguments were not examined and to invoking a violation of her right to be heard and arbitrariness in the assessment of evidence, without developing a detailed and substantiated constitutional grievance. Such argumentation does not satisfy the motivation requirements for an appeal subject to Art. 98 FSCA. (consid. 3.2.3)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court has joined the two cases. It dismisses the appeals to the extent that they are admissible. The request for legal aid for the federal proceedings is also denied, as the appellant's claims were deemed to have no prospect of success from the outset. The federal court costs, amounting to CHF 500, are to be borne by the appellant. Finally, the Federal Supreme Court remands the case to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau so that it may set a new deadline for the appellant to pay the advance on costs of CHF 650. (considerations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the operative part)