Federal Supreme Court, 22.12.2025, 9C_709/2025
Facts
Following a tax assessment decision (back taxes, default interest, and a fine), taxpayers filed an appeal with the Obergericht of the Canton of Schaffhausen. The court required an advance on costs. The taxpayers' request for legal aid was rejected, a decision confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court (TF) in an initial ruling.
The Obergericht then set a new deadline for the payment of the advance on costs. The taxpayers' appeal against this new deadline was declared inadmissible by the TF due to being filed late in a second ruling (9C_645/2025).
As the advance on costs was not paid within the allotted time, the Obergericht issued a decision not to proceed with the initial appeal. The taxpayers have once again appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to challenge this decision not to proceed.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that when an appeal is directed against a decision by a lower court not to proceed, the appellant must explain how that decision violates the law. The grounds for the appeal must be relevant and pertain to the subject of the dispute, namely the issue of inadmissibility (art. 42 and 108 para. 1 let. b LTF). Arguments that only address the merits of the case, without challenging the reasons for the decision not to proceed, are inadmissible.
Furthermore, a Federal Supreme Court ruling becomes final as soon as it is issued (art. 61 LTF) and is binding on the parties and the court. Finally, a request for an extension of a missed deadline must be addressed to the authority before which the missed act should have been performed (iudex a quo).
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the taxpayers, in their appeal, do not challenge the grounds for the Obergericht's decision not to proceed (i.e., the non-payment of the advance on costs). Instead, they attempt to re-argue points that have already been settled or should have been addressed in previous proceedings.
In particular, they seek to challenge the validity of the payment deadline, a point that was the subject of the previous proceeding (9C_645/2025) which the TF did not address due to it being filed late. The TF emphasizes that this previous ruling is final and cannot be called into question.
The appellants' arguments regarding alleged notification defects or the violation of the right to a fair trial are not directed at the decision not to proceed itself, but rather at previous procedural acts. The grounds for the appeal are therefore deemed irrelevant to the subject of the dispute.
The Federal Supreme Court also specifies that the request for an extension of time was misdirected, as it should have been filed with the Obergericht.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal due to a lack of relevant grounds. As the appeal has no prospect of success, the request for legal aid is denied. The court costs are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
