Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 02.04.2026, 9C_629/2025
Facts
A taxpayer, A.________, contested their tax assessments for the years 2014 to 2022. Following the rejection of their claim by the Vaud Cantonal Tax Administration, they appealed to the Vaud Cantonal Court.
By order dated October 9, 2025, the Cantonal Court required the taxpayer to pay an advance on costs of CHF 6,000, setting a deadline of October 29, 2025, for payment, failing which the appeal would be declared inadmissible. The payment was recorded by the court on October 31, 2025, two days late. The taxpayer justified this delay by explaining that the order had reached them late because it had been routed through their fiduciary.
The Cantonal Court rejected the request for an extension of the deadline and declared the appeal inadmissible due to the late payment. The taxpayer then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of this inadmissibility decision and the reinstatement of the payment deadline.
Legal Analysis
The dispute concerns two procedural law issues: the reinstatement of a deadline due to an unpreventable obstacle and the prohibition of excessive formalism.
- Reinstatement of a deadline: According to established case law and procedural statutes (in this case, the Vaud Law on Administrative Procedure, LPA-VD), a deadline may be reinstated if a party or their representative was prevented from acting within the prescribed time limit through no fault of their own. An obstacle is considered unpreventable if it results from an objective impossibility (force majeure) or a subjective one (serious illness, accident) that renders the party or their representative incapable of acting personally or appointing a third party. Simple negligence, poor organization, or a heavy workload, whether on the part of the party themselves or their representative, do not constitute valid grounds for reinstatement. Furthermore, the fault of the representative (lawyer, fiduciary) is directly attributable to the party they represent.
- Excessive formalism (Art. 29 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution): Excessive formalism occurs when an authority applies a procedural rule in an overly rigid manner without justification by a legitimate interest. This happens when procedure becomes an end in itself, makes the realization of substantive law unsustainably difficult, or hinders access to justice. However, strict adherence to procedural deadlines is generally not considered excessive formalism. On the contrary, it is justified by compelling public interest motives, such as legal certainty, equal treatment of litigants, and the proper administration of justice.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court analyzes the two grievances raised by the appellant in turn.
- Regarding the reinstatement of the deadline: The Federal Supreme Court fully upholds the reasoning of the cantonal instance. It notes that the appellant provided contradictory explanations, first citing a delay in transmission by their fiduciary, then admitting during a phone call that they had not collected their mail in time. These elements point to negligence. The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that even if the delay were due to the representative's absence while abroad, this argument is irrelevant. The absence of a representative for personal or professional reasons is a matter of their internal organization. It is their responsibility to make the necessary arrangements (e.g., delegation or mail-forwarding instructions) to ensure compliance with deadlines in ongoing proceedings. Such a situation constitutes neither an objective nor a subjective impossibility justifying the reinstatement of a deadline. As the representative's negligence is attributable to the appellant, the request for reinstatement was rightly rejected.
- Regarding excessive formalism: The Federal Supreme Court also dismisses this grievance. It reiterates that the requirement for an advance on costs and the sanction of inadmissibility in the event of non-payment within the set deadline (provided for inArt. 47 para. 2 LPA-VD) are clear and established procedural rules. Their strict application aims to ensure equal treatment and legal certainty. The appellant's argument that a delay of a few days causes no prejudice to the authority and does not slow down the proceedings is deemed irrelevant. Allowing case-by-case exceptions based on perceived prejudice would strip the concept of a deadline of its substance and create legal uncertainty. The application of the legal consequence provided (inadmissibility) is therefore not a disproportionate sanction or a manifestation of excessive formalism, but a correct application of procedural law.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court finds the appeal to be manifestly ill-founded. It dismisses the appeal under the simplified procedure ofArticle 109(2) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). Consequently, the judgment of the Vaud Cantonal Court is upheld, and the taxpayer's initial appeal regarding their tax assessments is definitively declared inadmissible. The costs of the federal proceedings, amounting to CHF 1,500, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
