The taxpayer is a shareholder of a company. This company is an operating company that is also the holding company of three other companies (mixed holding company). The taxpayer has lent a significant sum to the company, a loan that is fully subordinated. The three subsidiaries pay dividends to the company.
For the estimation of the company's share value,
The tax authorities value subsidiaries to release latent reserves on holdings (2x capitalised \u00abprofit generation\u00bb + 1x asset value).
\u25b6\ufe0f correct their value in the balance sheet
To determine the effective value of the deferred loan to the balance sheet liability (and an element of the taxpayer's assets).
This corrected balance sheet for the value of shareholdings and the loan actually due serves as the basis for determining the intrinsic value of the mixed holding company.
2\ufe0f\u20e3 The tax authorities calculate the yield value of the mixed holding company, taking into account the dividends distributed by the subsidiaries (\u00abprofit distribution\u00bb).
The taxpayer complains that the tax authorities calculate the value of subsidiaries at approximately twice their value to determine the value of the holding company.
The cantonal judges (lower instance) reject the taxpayer's appeal on the grounds that the relevant tax circular does not allow for the assumption that dividends should not be taken into account in the holding company\u2019s yield value. The initial valuation of the subsidiaries allows for the valuation of the subordinated loan, while the inclusion of dividends allows for the valuation of the holding company.
The cantonal judges (higher instance) validate the reasoning of the lower instance judges. They conclude that the circular contains no omission concerning mixed holding companies, which must consequently be considered as commercial companies, therefore with a profit determining the yield value including dividends from participations.
Federal judges say
\u25b6\ufe0f that the notion of the LHID rateable value has no specific scope, leaves considerable latitude to the cantons and therefore the TF's cognisance is limited to constitutional complaints of arbitrariness (cons. 5.1)
\u25b6\ufe0f that the cantonal judges did not act arbitrarily (para. 5.2 et seq.).
The ruling is in French. This is a Genevan case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal Tribunal, judgment 9C_376\/2025, of 4 September 2025<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ud83d\udc49 Le contribuable est actionnaire d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9. Cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 op\u00e9rationnelle qui est \u00e9galement la holding de trois autres soci\u00e9t\u00e9s (holding mixte). Le contribuable a pr\u00eat\u00e9 une somme importante \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, pr\u00eat int\u00e9gralement postpos\u00e9. Les trois filiales versent des dividendes \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9. \ud83d\udc49 Pour l’estimation de la valeur des actions de […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n