The taxpayer sells a property to a third party. The taxpayer fails to fulfil their tax obligations and is assessed by default. This results in a tax amount of nearly CHF 500,000. The taxpayer goes bankrupt. The bankruptcy proceedings are quickly concluded due to a lack of assets. The tax authorities are left with their unpaid tax claim. The tax authorities request, and obtain from, the land registry the registration of a legal mortgage on the property sold, which now belongs to the third party. To assert their rights, the third party requests a decision from the tax authorities regarding the registration of a legal mortgage so that they can challenge it. The tax authorities comply, issue a decision stating that a public law legal mortgage exists on the property, and give the third party 30 days to pay the taxpayer's tax liability, failing which the tax authorities will realise the pledge.
The two cantonal authorities side with the tax authorities.
The third party asks the TF
1. To order the Land Registry to cancel the legal mortgage
2. to state that they are not responsible for paying the taxpayer's tax.
Federal judges declare civil findings inadmissible, stating they must be subject to civil proceedings.
Federal judges find that the tax lien is not a harmonised concept. In the canton concerned, the security arises at the same time as the debt, without registration in the land register. Registration in the land register merely makes the debt imprescriptible.
Civil law, specifically Article 836(2) of the Civil Code, states that legal mortgages exceeding CHF 1,000 are not enforceable against third parties acting in good faith if they are not registered within four months, or at the latest within two years. It follows that acquiring third parties, whose good faith is presumed, are maintained in their possession (Article 973(1) of the Civil Code).
The federal judges 1) annul the obligation for a third party to pay the taxpayer's taxes and 2) rule that the third party must not be subjected to the real estate lien registered on their property for a debt concerning the taxpayer.
The ruling is in German. It concerns a Schaffhausen case. A BGE publication is planned.
\ud83d\udca1 You can save the post using the \u2026 in the top right.
Federal Tribunal, judgment 9C_231\/2025, of 9 December 2025<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ud83d\udc49 La contribuable vend un immeuble \u00e0 un tiers. La contribuable ne remplit pas ses obligations fiscales et se fait taxer d’office. Il en r\u00e9sulte un montant d’imp\u00f4t de pr\u00e8s de CHF 500’000. La contribuable tombe en faillite. La proc\u00e9dure de faillite est rapidement cl\u00f4tur\u00e9e, faute d’actifs. Le fisc se retrouve avec sa pr\u00e9tention fiscale […]<\/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-356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n