Federal Supreme Court, 02.02.2026, 9C_52/2026
Facts
The Ticino tax authority initiated tax assessment and tax evasion proceedings against a taxpayer. After a final deadline for submitting documents had passed, the authority notified the taxpayer of its decision via registered mail. The taxpayer filed an objection more than 30 days after the attempted delivery, arguing that they were only able to review the decision upon returning from a business trip abroad. The tax authority declared the objection inadmissible due to being filed late and refused to grant an extension of the deadline. This decision was upheld by the Tax Law Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino. The taxpayer then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
Regarding direct federal tax (DBG) and harmonized cantonal taxes (LT/TI, StHG), an objection must be filed within 30 days of the notification of the decision. According to case law, an undelivered registered letter is deemed notified on the seventh day after the first delivery attempt (notification fiction). This fiction applies when the recipient should have expected to receive communication from the authority, which is the case during ongoing proceedings. A deadline extension due to late filing may be granted if the taxpayer proves they were prevented from acting in time through no fault of their own, for example due to being out of the country (Art. 133 para. 3 DBG). However, a temporary absence only constitutes grounds for an extension if it was unforeseeable and the taxpayer exercised the required diligence, particularly by making arrangements for their mail to be handled.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the objection was filed late. The taxpayer had been the subject of tax proceedings for several months, and a final deadline for document submission had expired. They should therefore have expected to receive a decision from the tax authority. Since the notice for the registered letter was placed in their mailbox on June 6, 2024, notification is deemed to have occurred on June 13, 2024 (the seventh day). The 30-day objection period therefore expired on July 15, 2024, making the objection filed on July 25/29, 2024, late. The fact that the taxpayer extended the collection period at the post office is irrelevant.
The Federal Supreme Court also denies the request for a deadline extension. Firstly, the taxpayer did not sufficiently prove their absence for professional reasons. Secondly, even if proven, this absence was not unforeseeable, as the professional events they claimed to have attended required planning. They should therefore have taken measures to ensure their mail was collected. Finally, the taxpayer returned to Switzerland on June 26, 2024, which was before the objection deadline expired, leaving them enough time to act. The conditions for a deadline extension are therefore not met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal regarding both direct federal tax and cantonal taxes. The request for legal aid is also rejected, as the appeal was devoid of any chance of success. Court costs are charged to the appellant.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
