Switzerland: Withholding tax refund on dividend transactions denied

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: Withholding tax refund on dividend transactions denied

mercuri-ferdinando.jpg

dupasquier-celine.jpg

Ferdinando Mercuri and Céline Dupasquier, Deloitte

After two decisions in favour of tax payers with regards to withholding tax (WHT) refund in cases close to "dividend stripping scheme", the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) took an opposite decision on March 13 2013 and refused the refund of the WHT levied on dividends distributed by a Swiss company to a Swiss bank.

This decision was taken based on domestic law whereas the two previous decisions were taken in application of the double tax treaty (DTT) between Switzerland and Denmark. In this very last decision, the transaction ruled upon consisted in the acquisition of shares by a Swiss bank from UK counterparties before the dividend due date and simultaneously in the sale at a lower price of futures on similar stocks to the same counterparties. The FAC argued that the dividends paid were actually distributed to the foreign counterparties by the Swiss bank before the distribution. Consequently, the FAC came to the conclusion that based on Swiss law, the conditions to benefit from the reimbursement were not fulfilled as the Swiss bank had no right of use on these dividends. It also concluded that the only purpose of the transaction from the counterparties' standpoint was to save tax and consequently that the conditions of tax avoidance were fulfilled.

The FAC also rejected the partial refund to UK counterparties based on the DTT because there is no evidence that the counterparties would have been entitled to benefit from this refund and that in any case the refund was not requested in due time. With this latter argument, the FAC emphasises the importance to strictly comply with the legal procedure and deadline to obtain a refund.

This decision, as well as the previous ones, will most probably finally be judged by the Supreme Court which, hopefully, should come to a similar conclusion for all cases. This is desirable to remove the legal uncertainty with regards to the WHT impact in such operations.

Ferdinando Mercuri (fmercuri@deloitte.ch)

Tel: +41 58 279 9242

Céline Dupasquier (cdupasquier@deloitte.ch)

Tel: +41 58 279 9226

Deloitte

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article