Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 20.04.2026, 9C_456/2025
Facts
The dispute is between the public limited company A.________ AG and the municipality of Val Müstair, in the canton of Grisons.
A.________ AG owns a property located within the municipality. On June 14, 2024, the municipality sent the company an invoice for the 2023 tourist tax (Beherbergungsabgabe) totaling CHF 1,096. This amount consists of a base tax of CHF 250 and a surface area tax of CHF 846.
The company challenged this assessment through cantonal legal channels. Its objection was initially rejected by the municipality on July 22, 2024, and its subsequent appeal was dismissed by a judgment of the Grisons Cantonal Court (Obergericht) on June 20, 2025.
Believing the tax assessment to be unfounded, A.________ AG filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. It requested the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the complete cancellation of the 2023 tourist tax.
Legal Analysis
The central legal issue concerns the interpretation and application of municipal and cantonal tax law in light of federal constitutional principles.
- Contested legal basis:Art. 5 para. 1 of the Val Müstair Municipal Tourism Act (TG), in conjunction withArt. 22a of the Cantonal Tax Act (GKStG/GR). This provision provides for an exemption from the tourist tax for "anyone who is subject to unlimited tax liability in the municipality and does not have a holiday residence for personal use (selbst genutzte Ferienliegenschaft) there."
- Constitutional principles invoked:
- Principle of legality in tax matters (Art. 127 para. 1 Cst.): Every tax must be based on a formal legal foundation that clearly defines the taxpayers, the object of the tax, and the method of calculation. The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that if the law itself is challenged, it reviews it freely. However, if only its application in a specific case is criticized, it reviews the cantonal decision only for arbitrariness.
- Prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.): A decision is arbitrary if it is manifestly unsustainable, in flagrant contradiction with the factual situation, if it violates an undisputed legal norm or principle, or if it shocks the sense of justice. The mere fact that another solution is conceivable is not sufficient to constitute arbitrariness.
- Right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.): This right includes the authority's obligation to provide reasons for its decisions. The reasoning must set out the essential grounds that guided the authority, in order to allow the affected party to challenge the decision with full knowledge of the facts.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines the arguments of the appellant company in light of these principles.
a. Dismissal of formal complaints
The Court immediately dismisses the alleged violations of the right to be heard and the prohibition of arbitrariness in the establishment of facts. It considers that the cantonal decision was sufficiently reasoned to allow for an appeal and that the appellant failed to demonstrate how any potential error regarding the facts would have been decisive.
b. Non-arbitrary interpretation of the concept of "own use"
The core of the reasoning concerns the interpretation of Art. 5 para. 1 TG. The appellant, a legal entity, argued that it could not make "own use" of its property and should therefore be exempt.
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the analysis of the cantonal authority, which rejected a purely literal interpretation and conducted a comprehensive analysis:
- Systematic interpretation: Taxation is the rule, exemption is the exception. Exceptions must be interpreted restrictively.
- Historical interpretation: The cantonal law was designed to close loopholes and avoid losses in tax revenue. Allowing an exemption in this case would run counter to the legislator's intent.
- Teleological interpretation (according to the purpose of the rule): The tourist tax aims to ensure that those who benefit from tourist infrastructure contribute to it. By making its property available for vacation purposes, even to its own shareholders or directors, the company indirectly benefits from the municipality's tourist appeal.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the interpretation by the cantonal judges, according to which the company's provision of the property to its shareholders and directors constitutes "own use" through transparency, is not arbitrary.
c. Prevention of tax evasion (abuse of rights)
The Federal Supreme Court explicitly confirms that it would be "shocking" ("stossend") if the mere interposition of a legal entity allowed for the circumvention of the obligation to pay the tax. By adopting an approach based on economic reality rather than strict legal formalism, the Court prevents a structure that would amount to tax evasion. The legal structure must not be used to evade a contribution due as a result of the actual use of the property.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal of A.________ AG.
Consequently, the decision of the Cantonal Court of Grisons is upheld, and the tourist tax assessment for the year 2023 is maintained.
Legal costs, set at CHF 2,200, are to be borne by the appellant company. No legal fees are awarded to the respondent municipality.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
