Federal Supreme Court, 05.02.2026, 9C_537/2025
Facts
A married couple domiciled in the canton of Vaud requested a dependent person deduction for the 2012 and 2015–2018 tax years, citing financial support provided to the husband's mother, who resides abroad. The cantonal tax authorities, and subsequently the Vaud Cantonal Court, denied the deduction, finding that the evidence provided was insufficient. The taxpayers then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for granting the dependent person deduction for direct federal tax (Art. 35 para. 1 let. b DBTA) and Vaud cantonal tax (Art. 40 para. 1 LI). To qualify, the taxpayer must, among other things, provide for the maintenance of a person unable to engage in gainful employment and prove that the financial aid provided meets at least the amount of the statutory deduction.
In accordance with the general principle of the burden of proof (Art. 8 CC), it is the taxpayer's responsibility to prove the facts that justify a tax deduction. Case law requires particularly strict evidence when the supported person resides abroad, due to the difficulties tax authorities face in verifying such claims.
Finally, before the Federal Supreme Court, the submission of new facts and evidence is generally inadmissible (Art. 99 para. 1 LTF).
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court deems the new documents submitted by the appellants inadmissible, as they failed to demonstrate why they could not have presented them before the cantonal court.
On the merits, the Federal Supreme Court upholds the Cantonal Court's analysis. The taxpayers failed to provide sufficient proof of the conditions for the deduction. Firstly, the mother's state of indigence and financial dependency were not established. Secondly, the financial payments were not conclusively proven. The appellants provided no bank records, and a written statement from the appellant's siblings was deemed insufficient, as it was considered incomplete (lacking amounts and dates).
The Federal Supreme Court considers the appellants' arguments to be mere general assertions that fail to demonstrate how the cantonal decision is arbitrary or in violation of federal law. The taxpayers' heightened duty to cooperate in this type of situation was not met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the taxpayers' appeal. It upholds the Cantonal Court's decision to deny the deduction for a dependent person for direct federal tax as well as cantonal and communal taxes for the tax periods in question. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
