Switzerland: Use of a Swiss company’s tax losses after a change of tax status

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Switzerland: Use of a Swiss company’s tax losses after a change of tax status

poltera.jpg

schwarz.jpg

Flurin Poltera


Gabriela Schwarz

Holding companies in Switzerland are, under certain conditions, exempt from cantonal/communal income taxation. Consequently, their income is only subject to taxation on a federal level. If such a company generates losses, for example as a result of valuation allowances on investments and loan receivables, or because of interest expenses, the question arises whether such losses can be used in a tax effective manner if the holding status no longer applies and the company is subject to ordinary taxation. There are various reasons for a change in tax status: the requirements for the tax status may no longer be fulfilled, a tax privileged company might merge with an operating company or a company might voluntarily waive its tax privilege. Based on a federal court decision, there are two options for the cantons how they can treat tax losses generated before the change of the tax status:

  • Some cantons allow for a taxpayer to disclose, before changing its tax status, the hidden reserves generated under the holding regime in a tax neutral manner. In such a case, both losses and re-valuation gains are treated in the same manner, as they are both disregarded for income tax purposes. In cantons which apply this practice, the tax authorities are entitled not to consider tax losses generated before the change of tax status.

  • Cantons which do not foresee such tax neutral step-up should accept the tax losses carried forward which were generated under the privileged tax regime.

The same should also apply with regard to companies benefiting from other tax privileges (for example mixed companies) if they become subject to ordinary taxation.

In any case, the company must claim the beneficial treatment, it will not automatically be granted by the tax authorities. It is therefore important for Swiss taxpayers to take the necessary steps to ensure no tax attributes are lost in the course of a change of the tax status. To get advance comfort in such situations, a ruling request can be filed, upon which the Swiss tax authorities typically confirm the consequences of a change in tax status, including the step up or the availability of tax losses, respectively.

Flurin Poltera (fpoltera@deloitte.ch)

Tel: +41 58 279 7217

Gabriela Schwarz (gschwarz@deloitte.ch)

Tel: +41 58 279 7367

Deloitte

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Tom Goldstein, who was represented by US law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, denied wilfully cheating on his taxes and blamed errors on his staff
Multinationals face rising TP scrutiny as global rules diverge. As Daniel Moalusi argues, strong, consistent documentation is now essential to minimise audit risk and protect tax positions
The profession is fundamentally restructuring itself around what tax and accounting work should be, a Thomson Reuters leader told ITR
The big four firm is consolidating 16 entities across the region to create a single 6,000-partner behemoth
Brazil’s tax reform unifies consumption taxes to simplify rules, centralise administration and reduce legal uncertainty
The ever-expansive firm has once again attracted a former ‘big four’ talent to lead the new offering
The amended double taxation avoidance agreement removes France’s most favoured nation status for tax treaty benefits
The levies extended beyond the president’s ‘legitimate reach’, the Supreme Court ruled
Gift this article