FSC, 05.12.2025, 9F_24/2025
Facts
A taxpayer had their tax appeal dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court (judgment 9C_155/2025). Their first request for revision of this judgment was also dismissed on the grounds that they were merely criticizing the Court's legal assessment (judgment 9F_14/2025). The taxpayer then filed a second request for revision, this time targeting the judgment that had dismissed their first request.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that its judgments, which become final upon pronouncement, can only be challenged through the extraordinary remedy of revision (art. 121 et seq. LTF). A new request for revision against a revision judgment is, in principle, possible. The ground for revision based on the inadvertent failure to consider relevant facts appearing in the case file (art. 121 let. d LTF) is met when the court has failed to take into account an important fact that appears in the file, or has misread it, inadvertently deviating from its exact content. This concept relates to the establishment of the fact itself and not to its legal assessment. Revision is not a means of appeal to obtain a re-examination of a judgment whose legal assessment is contested.
Application to the specific case
The applicant invokes art. 121 let. d LTF, claiming that the Federal Supreme Court failed to take into account "decisive facts" such as their tax status as a cross-border commuter, the scope of certain tax laws, or the principle of legality. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the points raised by the applicant do not constitute facts that were inadvertently ignored, but rather arguments of a legal nature. In reality, under the guise of a request for revision based on inadvertence, the applicant is merely reformulating and expanding upon the criticisms they had already leveled against the court's legal assessment in their previous request. The conditions for revision are therefore not met.
Outcome
The request for revision is dismissed. The court costs (CHF 1,500) are charged to the applicant. The Federal Supreme Court warns them that any further correspondence in this matter will henceforth be filed without action.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
