Federal Supreme Court, 27.11.2025, 9C_644/2025
Facts
A taxpayer failed to file their tax return for the 2023 tax period despite several reminders. Consequently, the tax authority issued an ex officio assessment via registered mail. As the taxpayer did not collect the letter within the postal holding period, it was returned to the sender. A few weeks after the deadline for filing an objection had passed, the taxpayer submitted their tax return. The tax authority treated this as an objection but dismissed it as time-barred. Cantonal appeals against this decision of inadmissibility were rejected. The taxpayer has now appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
UnderArt. 42 para. 1 and 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), an appeal must contain requests for relief and arguments explaining how the contested act violates the law. The appellant must address the reasoning of the lower court's decision and demonstrate precisely how it infringed federal law. Purely appellate criticism, which merely asserts the appellant's own version of the facts or legal opinion without addressing the grounds of the contested decision, is inadmissible. Regarding notification, a registered letter that could not be delivered and is not collected from the post office within the seven-day holding period is deemed notified on the last day of that period (legal fiction of notification). The appeal period begins to run from this date.
Application to the case
The lower court confirmed the inadmissibility of the taxpayer's objection, finding it to be time-barred. It held that the ex officio assessment decision was deemed notified on November 14, 2024 (the last day of the postal holding period) and that the 30-day objection period had therefore expired on December 16, 2024. The objection, filed on January 8, 2025, was consequently late. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge the lower court's reasoning regarding the legal fiction of notification or the calculation of the deadline. Instead, they merely argued that the amount of the ex officio assessment was excessive, that they could not pay it, and that their difficult personal situation had not been taken into account. The Federal Supreme Court notes that these arguments do not address the sole issue in dispute, namely the admissibility of the objection. The appellant fails to demonstrate how the lower court's decision to dismiss the case violates the law. Their criticism is purely appellate and therefore fails to meet the motivation requirements of Art. 42 LTF.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not admit the appeal. Court costs are charged to the appellant.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
