Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSCS) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts only. The full summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments individually tailored to your legal fields.
9C_280/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding VAT and input tax deduction reduction on subsidies
Summary of the Facts
A.________ AG, which operates a restaurant and a club, received a contribution from a cantonal monument preservation fund. The Federal Tax Administration (FTA) classified this contribution as a subsidy, which required a reduction of input tax pursuant to Art. 33 para. 2 VAT Act. A.________ AG requested equal treatment in error with the Covid-19 contributions, which the FTA exempted from this input tax reduction. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of A.________ AG.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The Federal Supreme Court confirms the admissibility of the appeal but emphasizes that the reasoning must meet strict requirements.
- E.2: Overview of the requirements of the VAT Act, especially Art. 18 and Art. 33 VAT Act, as well as a review of the FTA’s practice regarding Covid-19 contributions exempted from input tax reduction.
- E.3: The Federal Supreme Court excludes that an unlawful practice of the FTA can lead to equal treatment in error, because:
- the contributions from the monument preservation fund and the Covid-19 contributions differ in essential features, especially purpose and duration.
- the FTA’s practice regarding Covid-19 contributions expires anyway due to the limited duration of the pandemic measures.
- the principle of legality prevails over the equality claim of A.________ AG.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is dismissed in the dispositive and the court costs amounting to CHF 8,500 are imposed on the appellant.
8C_675/2025: Dismissal of the appeal regarding reconsideration of a half disability pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, after the dismissal of his first pension request in 2014, applied again for benefits from the disability insurance on May 4, 2020. Based on a multidisciplinary expert report by PMEDA AG, he was granted a half disability pension as of December 1, 2020, although the report confirmed full work capacity. The IV office revoked the pension by reconsideration order dated December 3, 2024. The cantonal social insurance court of Aargau dismissed A.________'s appeal against this decision on September 25, 2025.
Summary of the Considerations
The appeal is admitted because the overall context of the submission reveals a sufficiently precise request. The Federal Supreme Court reviews the law ex officio but primarily considers the raised complaints and the fact-finding of the lower court. It applies strict standards to correct the lower court’s findings of fact. The main dispute concerns whether the reconsideration of the order granting a half disability pension was justified. The underlying multidisciplinary expert report by PMEDA AG is generally recognized. According to recent case law, these reports must be strictly reviewed based on recommendations of the EKQMB. Only slight doubts about the reliability of the report could require a new evaluation. The conditions for reconsideration under Art. 53 para. 2 ATSG are met because the original order was undoubtedly incorrect. The cantonal court found without arbitrariness that at the time of the revocation order there were no doubts about the appellant’s full work capacity and took into account current case law when assessing the evidence. Court costs are imposed on the appellant due to the procedural outcome; however, his application for legal aid is granted.
Summary of the Dispositive
The dispositive provides for dismissal of the appeal, grants legal aid, and appoints a lawyer free of charge. Furthermore, court costs and compensation for the legal representative are charged to the Federal Supreme Court’s fund.
9C_600/2025: Taxation of lump-sum payments in connection with self-employment
Summary of the Facts
The spouses A.A. and B.A. received a lump-sum payment of CHF 612,699 from occupational benefits in 2018, which was intended for starting self-employment. It was disputed whether the conditions for privileged taxation under Art. 38 LIFD and Art. 49 LI/VD were met. The tax authorities and the lower court denied this due to lack of evidence of actual self-employment.
Summary of the Considerations
1. Admissibility (E.1): The appeal is open since the lower court decided as the last cantonal instance. 2. Federal Supreme Court’s review authority (E.2): The Federal Supreme Court reviews federal law ex officio and the application of cantonal harmonized law restrictively. 3. Subject matter of the dispute (E.3): The central question is whether the lump sum received by A.A. in 2018 was used to start self-employment and thus meets the conditions for privileged taxation. 4. Conditions for privileged taxation (E.4): Lump-sum payments from occupational benefits may be taxed separately and at a privileged rate under Art. 38 LIFD if related to the purpose of the pension. If the payment is not used accordingly, normal taxation applies. 5. Lack of actual self-employment (E.5-6): - Consideration of activity 2018-2019 (E.6): Between 2018 and 2019, there was no verifiable activity confirming the start of self-employment. The founding of a corporation in 2019 and the declared intention to operate through a company are insufficient. - After 2019 (E.7): The income generated was low, and the registered activity did not meet the criteria for self-employment. - Consideration of repayment possibility (E.11-12): The appellants remain free to repay the lump sum to a pension institution to avoid taxation under general rules. 8. Lower court’s adjustment of position on repayment options (E.11-12): The lower court must clarify whether repayment of the lump sum is legally possible. The Federal Supreme Court clarifies that this is part of tax assessment, not tax collection.
Summary of the Dispositive
The dispositive results in partial approval of the appeal and referral back to the cantonal administration for reassessment. Specific rules on court costs and party compensation were also established.
8C_113/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding helplessness allowance in disability insurance law
Summary of the Facts
A.________ applied for a helplessness allowance from disability insurance in February 2024 because she saw her independence restricted due to severe health problems from 2023. The IV office of Lucerne denied entitlement because only helplessness in one activity of daily living was present and no need for life-practical assistance of at least two hours per week was proven. An appeal to the Lucerne cantonal court was dismissed, whereupon A.________ brought an appeal in public law matters before the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_235/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding outstanding health insurance premiums
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal in public law matters against the judgment of the Lucerne cantonal court dated March 2, 2026. The dispute concerned outstanding health insurance premiums (November 2024 and January 2025) as well as default interest and reminder fees claimed by CSS Kranken-Versicherung AG. Previously, the appellant’s objection was partially lifted and definitive legal enforcement was granted. The lower court examined and confirmed CSS’s claims and dismissed A.________'s appeal insofar as it was admissible.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_310/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding tax evasion and penalty
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns a taxpayer from the canton of Vaud who was convicted for the tax periods 2012 to 2017 for completed tax evasion (2012 and 2013) and attempted tax evasion (2014 to 2017). It involves undeclared income from abroad (including commissions from a foreign company) as well as related procedures regarding reassessment and penalty determination. The lower court confirmed a fine of a total CHF 51,000 (IFD) and CHF 144,850 (ICC).
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_676/2025: Dismissal of the helplessness allowance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1964, applied for disability insurance benefits including a helplessness allowance in November 2020. After a multidisciplinary expert report (date of creation: 09.10.2023) and a home assessment report (08.12.2023), the cantonal IV office of Vaud granted him a full disability pension but denied entitlement to a helplessness allowance. The insured challenged this rejection at the cantonal court, which dismissed the appeal on October 14, 2025.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_397/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding reimbursement of social assistance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (A.________) challenged a judgment of the Lucerne cantonal court which ordered reimbursement of social assistance benefits to the appellee (municipal council of Emmen). The reimbursement amounts to CHF 41,270.95, including advances of CHF 7,420.75 and legitimately received social assistance of CHF 33,850.20, which were deemed reasonably subject to reimbursement.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_490/2024: Non-admission of the appeal regarding revision of a disability pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellee, A.________, had received a full disability pension since 2006. After a bi-disciplinary psychiatric-neuropsychological expert report, the IV office Zurich revoked the pension in 2020 on the grounds that the appellee had consciously exaggerated his ailments and the health condition had improved. The social insurance court of the canton of Zurich confirmed the pension revocation in 2021, whereupon the Federal Supreme Court partially upheld the appeal in 2023 and referred the case back for further examination regarding a possible worsening of the health condition. After re-assessment, the lower court continued to recognize the appellee's entitlement to a full pension.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.