Federal Supreme Court, 24.11.2025, 9C_475/2025
Facts
A taxpayer failed to file their 2022 tax return, resulting in a fine and an ex officio assessment by the Valais Tax Administration. Their appeals against these two decisions were successively rejected by the Cantonal Court and then declared inadmissible by the Federal Supreme Court (judgments 9C_384/2025 and 9C_385/2025), on the grounds that they were not sufficiently substantiated.
Subsequently, the taxpayer filed a request for revision of these cantonal judgments, citing "segregation/discrimination" experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cantonal Court declared this request for revision inadmissible. The taxpayer appealed this decision of inadmissibility to the Federal Supreme Court, also requesting the revision of the previous Federal Supreme Court judgments and the granting of legal aid.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for the revision of a final tax decision under Art. 147 para. 1 let. a of the Federal Direct Tax Act (FDTA). Revision is only possible if significant facts or conclusive evidence are discovered. A fact is "significant" if it is likely to change the decision in the applicant's favor. It must be "new," meaning it already existed at the time of the decision but was unknown to the applicant. Grievances relating to the conduct of the assessment procedure (Art. 123 et seq. FDTA) must be raised during the ordinary appeal procedure, not through a request for revision.
A request for revision of a Federal Supreme Court judgment must be substantiated in accordance with Arts. 121 et seq. LTF.
Legal aid (Art. 64 LTF) is granted if the party lacks sufficient resources and their claims are not bound to fail.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant has not presented any valid grounds for revision within the meaning of Art. 147 DBG. Their arguments regarding alleged "segregation" or a failure by the tax authority to fulfill its duty to inform do not constitute new facts that existed at the time of the initial decisions. These are substantive grievances that should have been raised and substantiated during the initial appeal proceedings. The appellant is attempting, through the revision process, to remedy the shortcomings of their previous appeals. The Cantonal Court therefore correctly ruled that the request for revision was inadmissible.
The request for revision of the Federal Supreme Court judgments is also inadmissible, as the appellant neither invokes nor demonstrates the existence of any of the grounds for revision provided by law (Art. 121 et seq. LTF).
Finally, the request for legal aid is denied. As the appeal is manifestly devoid of any chance of success, one of the cumulative conditions of Art. 64 LTF is not met.
Outcome The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It declares the request for revision of Federal Supreme Court judgments 9C_384/2025 and 9C_385/2025 inadmissible. The request for the appointment of court-appointed counsel is denied. No court costs are charged.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
