FSC, 01/16/2026, 9C_470/2025
Facts
The Federal Supreme Court found that the cantonal authority’s assessment of the evidence was untenable. The appellant provided sufficient concrete evidence to rebut the presumption of service, notably by producing photocopies of official correspondence intended for third parties that had been mistakenly placed in her mailbox, demonstrating recurring delivery issues. Her good faith is presumed and confirmed by her request for a receipt from the court, which supports her claim that she was unaware of the order regarding the advance on costs.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that service was irregular, meaning the time limit never began to run. The question of an extension of time therefore did not arise.
Outcome:
The appeal is granted, the Cantonal Court’s judgment is set aside, and the case is remanded for a new deadline to be set for the appellant to pay the advance on costs.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the cantonal court’s assessment of the evidence was untenable. The appellant provided sufficient concrete evidence to rebut the presumption of service: she produced photocopies of several pieces of official correspondence addressed to third parties that had been placed in her mailbox. These documents demonstrate the existence of recurring delivery issues. Furthermore, the appellant’s good faith is presumed, and her inquiry with the court to obtain a receipt for her appeal corroborates her version of events (she would not have made this request had she been aware of the order requiring an advance on costs). The Federal Supreme Court therefore concluded that the appellant had made it plausible that she had not received the notice of delivery. Service of the order setting the deadline was therefore irregular. Consequently, the time limit never validly began to run, and the question of an extension of time did not arise.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court granted the appeal, set aside the Cantonal Court’s judgment, and remanded the case for the court to set a new deadline for the appellant to pay the advance on costs.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
