TF, 10/26/2025, 9C_525/2025
Facts
A.________ and B.________ sold a property in 2021, realizing a significant gain. A dispute arose with the Zurich city tax authorities regarding the amount of the taxable gain. After their initial complaint was rejected, their appeal to the Zurich Cantonal Tax Appeals Tribunal was also dismissed. They subsequently appealed to the Zurich Administrative Court, which refused to hear the case, deeming the appeal insufficiently substantiated. The taxpayers have now appealed this decision of inadmissibility to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
Under Zurich tax law (§ 147 para. 4 in conjunction with § 153 para. 4 StG/ZH), an appeal to the Administrative Court must include a statement of grounds. If this requirement is not met, a short grace period is granted to rectify the defect, failing which the appeal is deemed inadmissible. The Zurich Administrative Court interprets this requirement as an obligation for the appellant to substantively address the reasoning of the contested decision. Furthermore, it distinguishes between parties represented by counsel, for whom a lack of substantiation leads to immediate inadmissibility, and unrepresented parties, who must be granted a period for rectification. The Federal Supreme Court reviews the application of cantonal procedural law only in terms of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.), excessive formalism (Art. 29 para. 1 Cst.), and violation of the principle of equal treatment (Art. 8 para. 1 Cst.).
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the Administrative Court declared the appeal inadmissible because it merely repeated, almost word for word, the arguments presented in the previous instance without addressing the reasoning of the Tax Appeals Tribunal's decision. The Federal Supreme Court finds that this requirement to engage with the grounds of the contested decision is neither arbitrary nor constitutes excessive formalism, noting that similar requirements apply in federal proceedings. Regarding the failure to grant a grace period to rectify the appeal, the Federal Supreme Court upholds the distinction made by the lower court between parties represented by counsel and those who are not. A professional representative is expected to file a submission that complies with legal requirements. Therefore, the refusal to grant a rectification period to a party assisted by a lawyer violates neither the principle of equal treatment nor the prohibition of arbitrariness or excessive formalism.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. The court costs are to be borne by the appellants, jointly and severally.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
