Federal Supreme Court, 11.10.2025, 9C_359/2025
Facts
In 2006, taxpayers left Switzerland and received the husband's occupational pension exit benefit as a lump sum. Upon their return to Switzerland in 2011, they deposited the balance of these funds into a bank account, which was pledged as collateral for a mortgage loan. In 2020, they made a voluntary disclosure for failing to declare this account, along with others, in their tax returns from 2011 to 2018. They argued that these assets, derived from pension funds, should be tax-exempt. The tax authority issued a back-tax assessment for wealth and income for the periods in question, which also included assets held abroad that the taxpayers claimed did not belong to them. The tax assessment was upheld by the appeals authority and subsequently by the Vaud Cantonal Court. The taxpayers appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that an occupational pension exit benefit paid out as a lump sum upon permanent departure from Switzerland leaves the pension system and becomes part of the beneficiary's freely available private wealth. A tax exemption is possible under Art. 24 let. c DBIG, but only if the capital is reinvested in another occupational pension institution within one year. Once integrated into private wealth, these assets are subject to wealth tax. The returns they generate (interest, dividends) are taxable as income from movable assets (Art. 20 para. 1 let. a DBIG). The principle prohibiting double taxation is not violated when income tax (at the time of the lump-sum payment), wealth tax (on the capital held), and income tax (on the returns from the capital) are levied, as they target distinct tax objects.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the taxpayers had free disposal of their pension capital since it was paid out in 2006. They used it for investments and deposited it into private bank accounts. The capital therefore left the pension system to become part of their taxable movable wealth. The exemption condition under Art. 24 let. c DBIG is not met, as the funds were not reinvested in a pension institution within the statutory one-year period. The taxpayers' intention to use these funds for their retirement is fiscally irrelevant under the principle of legality (Art. 127 Cst.). The argument regarding double taxation is rejected. Taxing the capital in 2006, and subsequently taxing the wealth and its returns between 2011 and 2018, does not constitute double taxation because the objects being taxed are different. Regarding the assets held abroad, the Federal Supreme Court rules that their attribution to the taxpayers is sufficiently proven by information obtained through administrative assistance and by an email produced by the appellants themselves.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the taxpayers' appeal to the extent that it is admissible. It upholds the judgment of the Cantonal Court and, consequently, the back-tax assessment for direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes for the 2011 to 2018 tax periods. The court costs are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
