Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 19.06.2026, 9C_630/2025
Facts
For the 2014 tax year, a taxpayer (hereinafter: the appellant) declared a 50% stake in the company D.________ SA as part of their private assets, with a tax value of CHF 1,464,049. The tax authority (TA) reclassified this stake as business assets, valuing it at CHF 50,000, and made other adjustments. (consid. A.a, A.b)
Following an objection procedure and an initial appeal to the Tax Law Chamber of the Ticino Cantonal Court of Appeal, which remanded the case to the tax authority for further investigation, the TA maintained its position in a new decision on the objection dated March 12, 2025. It confirmed the classification of the stake as business assets at a value of CHF 50,000, concluding that the transaction constituted (quasi-)professional securities trading and that a tax ruling obtained in 2015 did not apply to the 2014 situation. (consid. A.b, A.c)
The appellant again appealed to the Tax Law Chamber, challenging the classification and requesting that the stake be recognized as private assets with a taxable value of CHF 5,000,000. In a judgment dated October 8, 2025, the cantonal court dismissed the appeal, confirming the existence of (quasi-)professional securities trading based on jurisprudential criteria (systematic nature, third-party financing, specialized knowledge). (consid. B)
The taxpayer then filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the recognition of their stake as part of their private assets. (consid. C)
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of an appeal ex officio and with full power of review. It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate that they meet the conditions for admissibility, in particular their standing to appeal (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 LTF). (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
According toArt. 89 para. 1 LTF, standing to file an appeal in public law matters is granted to anyone who a) participated in the proceedings before the lower authority, b) is particularly affected by the contested decision, and c) has a legitimate interest in its annulment or modification. These three conditions are cumulative. (consid. 2.2)
An interest is worthy of protection when the admission of an appeal is likely to provide the appellant with a practical, material, or non-material advantage and to improve their legal or factual situation. If the admission of the appeal does not change the appellant's situation in any way, the interest worthy of protection is lacking. Only the operative part of a decision, not its reasoning, acquires the authority of res judicata and can therefore be the subject of an appeal. Consequently, there is no interest in appealing to have the private or commercial nature of an asset determined if this classification does not lead to concrete and unfavorable tax consequences for the appellant. (consid. 2.3, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3)
In principle, the interest in appealing must be current. The Federal Supreme Court only waives this requirement in exceptional cases, if the legal question could arise again under similar circumstances, if a timely judgment is impossible, and if there is an overriding public interest in resolving the issue. (consid. 3.5)
Application to the specific case
The dispute before the lower court concerned the classification, for the 2014 wealth tax, of the 50% stake in D.________ SA. The appellant argued that it was private wealth to be valued at its market value (which he estimated at CHF 5,000,000), while the tax authority considered it commercial wealth, taxable at its value relevant for income tax purposes (i.e., CHF 50,000). (consid. 3.1)
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant fails to demonstrate how he would have an interest worthy of protection in the annulment of the cantonal judgment. Indeed, the admission of his appeal—that is, classifying the stake as private wealth at a value of CHF 5,000,000—would result in a considerable increase in his taxable wealth for 2014 compared to the value of CHF 50,000 determined by the tax authorities. Such an outcome would be fiscally unfavorable to him. The appellant therefore derives no practical advantage from the admission of his claims. (consid. 3.3, 3.4)
The Federal Supreme Court also rejects the existence of a virtual current interest. The question of the classification of the stake for the 2014 tax assessment is distinct from that of the taxation of the gain realized upon the sale of that same stake, which occurred in 2015. The 2014 dispute does not prejudge the outcome of the 2015 assessment. Furthermore, the 2015 ruling, which concerned professional securities trading, is not relevant to the present case, which concerns the (quasi-)professional trading of participations, for which the criteria are different. The appellant therefore fails to demonstrate that the legal question could arise again in identical terms in subsequent years. (consid. 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.6)
Outcome
As the appellant has not demonstrated that he has an interest worthy of protection in modifying the contested decision, his appeal is declared inadmissible regarding both direct federal tax and cantonal tax. The court costs, reduced to CHF 3,000, are charged to the appellant. (consid. 3.7, 1, 2, 3)