Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 11.03.2026, 9D_3/2026
Facts
A taxpayer (born in 1989), domiciled in the canton of Zurich, was subject to final tax assessments for cantonal, municipal, and direct federal taxes for the 2011 to 2018 periods. A subsequent tax evasion and penalty procedure was conducted, resulting in a total tax liability of CHF 6,946.30 (taxes, fines, and costs).
On September 4, 2024, the taxpayer requested a full remission of this debt from the cantonal tax authority. His request was rejected by a decision dated January 28, 2025. The taxpayer appealed this decision to the Finance Department of the canton of Zurich. The department declared the appeal inadmissible in a decision dated August 19, 2025, on the grounds that the statutory appeal deadline had not been met.
The taxpayer then appealed to the Administrative Court of the canton of Zurich. Since the Finance Department's decision was notified to him on August 27, 2025, the appeal deadline expired on September 26, 2025. However, he filed his appeal on September 28, 2025, two days late. In his brief, he requested both the remission of his tax debt and the restoration of the missed appeal deadline.
In a judgment dated December 31, 2025, the Administrative Court rejected the request for restoration of the deadline. Finding that the taxpayer had missed the deadline, it ruled the appeal inadmissible without examining the merits of the case (the request for tax remission). The court acknowledged that the taxpayer was going through a "difficult and turbulent period," but concluded that these circumstances were insufficient to justify a restoration of the deadline under established case law.
The taxpayer then filed an appeal (entitled "Einsprache") with the Federal Supreme Court. He primarily contests the CHF 350 in court costs charged to him by the previous instance, which he deems "very high." He also criticizes the authorities for failing to take his personal situation into account (aftereffects of a serious accident, a difficult youth, completed military service, living at the subsistence level) and offers to pay a "small portion" of the debt.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court first recalls the nature of an appeal regarding tax remission. In accordance withArt. 83 let. m of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in public law matters is inadmissible in this area, unless it involves a legal question of principle, which is not the case here. Consequently, only the path of a subsidiary constitutional appeal (Art. 113 FSCA) is available.
Within the framework of this appeal, the Federal Supreme Court's scope of review is very limited. Tax law, both federal and cantonal, does not confer any subjective right to obtain a tax remission. The appellant therefore cannot challenge the merits of the refusal decision (for example, by invoking arbitrariness in the assessment of facts). He may only complain of a violation of his constitutional rights amounting to a formal denial of justice. This includes grievances such as the wrongful inadmissibility of an appeal, violation of the right to be heard, or the refusal to administer evidence or allow access to the file.
The Federal Supreme Court also specifies that the subject of the dispute before it is limited to what was decided by the previous instance (Art. 99 para. 2 FSCA). New claims that expand or modify the subject of the dispute are inadmissible.
Finally, for a grievance regarding the violation of constitutional rights to be examined, it must be substantiated in a clear and detailed manner, in accordance with the requirements of theArt. 106(2) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the subject of the dispute before the Zurich Administrative Court primarily concerned the request for an extension of the appeal deadline. Only if this request had been granted could the court have examined the merits of the case, namely the application for tax remission. The taxpayer's offer to pay a "small portion" of the debt constitutes a new claim, raised for the first time before the Federal Supreme Court, and is therefore inadmissible.
Regarding the central issue of the extension of the deadline, the taxpayer merely describes their difficult personal situation. However, they fail to raise any admissible grievance regarding a formal denial of justice. For instance, they do not claim that the Administrative Court wrongly declared their appeal late or violated their right to be heard on the matter of the extension. They complain that their "situation" was not taken into account, which amounts to criticizing the lower court's assessment of the facts—a grievance that is inadmissible in the context of a subsidiary constitutional appeal concerning tax remission.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that, even considering that the appeal was drafted by a non-lawyer (for whom formal requirements are applied with a certain degree of flexibility), the brief contains no argumentation meeting the requirements for a constitutional appeal. The appellant does not explain how the refusal to grant an extension of the deadline would constitute a formal denial of justice. In the absence of admissible grievances, the appeal must be declared inadmissible in its entirety.
Furthermore, the request for legal aid for the federal proceedings is rejected, as the appeal is deemed to have no chance of success from the outset (Art. 64(1) LTF).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not hear the appeal. The request for legal aid is rejected. The court costs, set at CHF 500, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
