TF, 26.09.2025, 9C_439/2025
Facts
A taxpayer who moved from Zurich to Sweden challenged their tax assessments for the 2021 period. Their initial objections were dismissed as untimely. They appealed to the Zurich Cantonal Tax Appeals Tribunal, which issued its decision on April 25, 2025. A notice of arrival for this correspondence was sent to the taxpayer on May 9, 2025, and the taxpayer collected the letter on May 21, 2025.
The taxpayer then appealed to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich via a document posted in Sweden on June 18, 2025. The Administrative Court did not hear the appeal, deeming it late. It applied the legal fiction of notification, under which the 30-day appeal period began on May 16, 2025 (the seventh and final day of the postal holding period) and expired on June 16, 2025. The appeal, filed on June 18, 2025, was therefore late. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the requirements for substantiating an appeal in public law matters (Art. 42(1) and (2) LTF). When the lower court has declined to hear a case, the appellant must demonstrate how that decision violates federal law. Arguments focusing solely on the merits of the case are inadmissible.
The application of cantonal procedural law, such as rules regarding the calculation of time limits, is reviewed by the Federal Supreme Court only on the grounds of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) or the violation of other constitutional rights. To claim such a violation, the appellant is subject to a heightened duty of substantiation (Art. 106(2) LTF): they must clearly and specifically explain how the contested decision is untenable.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant merely contrasts their own version of the facts with that of the lower court. They argue that the appeal period should have begun on the date of actual receipt of the document (May 21, 2025), which would have made their June 18, 2025, appeal admissible.
However, the appellant does not explain how the Administrative Court's application of established case law regarding the fiction of notification would be arbitrary or violate their constitutional rights. They do not address the legal reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the case. Their argument is purely appellate in nature and therefore fails to meet the requirements for heightened substantiation.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court, ruling via simplified procedure, declines to hear the appeal, deeming it manifestly unfounded. The appellant's request for legal aid is denied due to the lack of merit in the appeal. Court costs, reduced to CHF 500, are charged to the appellant.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
