The taxpayers are property owners. They carry out various renovation works over three tax periods. These include roof repairs, kitchen renovation, replacement of the heating system, replacement of the electrical system, and installation of a photovoltaic system on part of the roof.
The tax authorities are refusing invoices related to the attic renovation.
Federal judges recall that since a ruling in 2023, \u00abeach measure must be examined using a functional approach to determine whether the property has benefited from a qualitative improvement and, consequently, an increase in value. The benchmark is not the total value of the property, but that of the specifically maintained or replaced installation.\u00bb (cons. 3.1.)
\u00abWork carried out for a new construction (actual, not merely economic) generally has the effect of increasing the value of the property, and the resulting costs cannot be deducted from income tax, even if the new construction has replaced a demolished building intended for a similar use (\u00abreplacement reconstruction\u00bb). In other words, the removal of the concept of \u00abeconomic new construction\u00bb has not changed the fact that the construction of a new building (new construction \u00abon greenfield land\u00bb) does not constitute a mere refurbishment of a property; the expenditure incurred for this purpose must therefore, in principle, be classified not as expenditure to maintain value, but as expenditure to increase value. This also applies when the new building replaces a demolished building: in the case of a replacement reconstruction after the demolition of a building has been completed, there is precisely no pre-existing building on which maintenance and refurbishment measures could (still) be carried out\u00bb. (cons. 3.2)
\u00abIt should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, for all work carried out on the load-bearing structure and for the roofing, depending on their objective technical nature \u2013 and in co-operation with the taxpayers \u2013 whether they serve to restore a previous state of the building and therefore have the effect of preserving its value. If the corresponding share cannot be determined, it should be presumed, at the taxpayer's expense, that the costs do not serve to maintain value and therefore cannot be deducted.\u00bb (Recital 3.6.)
As the file was empty on this point, the cantonal judges were right to request supplementary investigations, which was endorsed by the federal judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal Tribunal, judgment 9C_445\/2025, of 11 March 2026<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Les contribuables sont propri\u00e9taires immobiliers. Ils r\u00e9alisent divers travaux de r\u00e9novation sur trois p\u00e9riodes fiscales. On parle de r\u00e9fection du toit, de la r\u00e9novation de la cuisine, du changement du syst\u00e8me de chauffage, du remplacement du syst\u00e8me \u00e9lectrique, de la pose d’une installation photovolta\u00efque sur une partie du toit. Le fisc refuse des factures en […]<\/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-439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n