Federal Supreme Court, 06.11.2025, 9C_662/2024
Facts
In 2019, a taxpayer (the appellant) received a retroactive payment from his pension fund of CHF 702,923, which included child benefits for the years 2011 to 2019.
That same year, social services demanded the repayment of CHF 83,752, corresponding to child benefits for the 2011-2015 period, in order to reimburse the social assistance paid to his children during those years.
The appellant's 2019 tax assessment became final in July 2022. His obligation to repay the social assistance was only definitively confirmed by an Administrative Court judgment in December 2022.
In March 2023, the appellant requested a revision of his 2019 tax assessment in order to deduct the CHF 83,752 as maintenance payments.
His request was rejected by all cantonal authorities.
Law
According to Art. 147 para. 1 let. a of the Federal Act on Direct Federal Tax (DBG), a final decision may be revised in the taxpayer's favor if significant facts or decisive evidence are discovered.
A fact is "significant" if it is capable of altering the factual basis upon which the decision was made and leading to a different outcome. In principle, the fact must have existed at the time of the decision. A new fact that arises subsequently can only exceptionally constitute grounds for revision if it has a retroactive effect and reveals that the initial assessment was incorrect. According to Art. 33 para. 1 let. c DBG, maintenance payments are deductible from income.
Case law specifies that to be deductible, these payments must have been effectively paid during the relevant tax period. A mere obligation to pay is insufficient; the determining factor is the moment of actual payment, not the due date of the debt. The reimbursement of advanced alimony to a public authority is treated in the same manner.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the Administrative Court's December 2022 judgment, which confirmed the repayment obligation, constitutes a significant fact justifying the revision of the 2019 assessment. It noted that, although the repayment of social assistance is in principle deductible as a maintenance payment, the essential condition for the deduction was not met for the 2019 tax period.
Indeed, for a deduction to be allowed, the payment must have been made. However, the appellant neither alleged nor proved that he had repaid the sum of CHF 83,752 in 2019.
Consequently, the 2022 judgment does not constitute a "significant fact" within the meaning of the law on revision. Even if it were considered, it could not alter the 2019 tax calculation because no deductible expense was actually incurred during that year. The deduction may potentially be claimed for the tax period in which the payment is actually made.
The Federal Supreme Court therefore concluded that there are no grounds for revision. The same reasoning applies to cantonal and communal taxes, as the legal provisions are harmonized.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
