Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 16.01.2026, 9C_696/2025
Facts
A taxpayer was denied their request for legal aid and the appointment of a court-appointed attorney by the Special Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau in the context of tax proceedings. The Cantonal Administrative Court upheld this decision. The taxpayer then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the granting of legal aid for both the cantonal and federal proceedings.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the requirements for the substantiation of an appeal (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 LTF). The appellant must concisely explain how the contested act violates the law, specifically referring to the relevant considerations of the lower court's decision. Constitutional grievances are subject to heightened substantiation requirements (Art. 106 para. 2 LTF).
When a decision is based on several independent grounds (a primary ground and a subsidiary ground), each being sufficient to justify the outcome of the dispute, the appellant must validly challenge each of these grounds. If they fail to do so, the appeal is inadmissible.
Application to the case at hand
The lower court (the Cantonal Administrative Court) rejected the taxpayer's appeal based on two grounds:
- Primary ground: The appellant failed to fulfill their duty to cooperate by not providing the documents necessary to establish their indigence, thereby preventing an assessment of their financial situation.
- Subsidiary ground: Even taking into account the documents submitted late, the appellant's indigence would not have been established in any case.
In their appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, the taxpayer justified their failure by citing health problems (temporary loss of vision). They thus challenged the primary ground of the contested judgment. However, they presented no argument to challenge the subsidiary ground, according to which their indigence was not proven regardless, even with the late documents. As the subsidiary ground remains uncontested, it is sufficient on its own to uphold the lower court's decision. The appeal therefore does not meet the substantiation requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 LTF.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. It waives court costs and declares the request for legal aid for the federal proceedings moot.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
