Swiss-Italian travel agreement settles cross-border tax questions

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Swiss-Italian travel agreement settles cross-border tax questions

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
eric-prouzet-l-tsvvmplum-unsplash.jpg

David Wigersma and Giuseppe Sarno of Deloitte Switzerland explore how the governments of Switzerland and Italy have clarified the tax rules for cross-border workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

In July, Switzerland and Italy concluded a provisional mutual agreement, which settles the question of taxation of their respective cross-border workers* who are working from home. For the period from February until the end of June, and then to be renewable at the end of each month, cross-border commuters working from home will be deemed for tax purposes to have travelled physically to their usual place of work.



Due to travel restrictions by the Swiss and Italian governments, many cross-border workers who reside in Italy and work in Switzerland, or vice versa, have been unable to get to their ordinary place of work. This has raised the question whether this will result in a change in the tax regime applicable to them.



The agreement between Switzerland and Italy about cross-border workers who are forced to work from home due to the travel measures taken by the two governments, which applies on an exceptional and provisional basis, clarifies the tax situation. In substance, cross-border commuters working from home continue to benefit from the same tax treatment as if they had physically gone to their usual place of work. The same treatment also applies to the cross-border workers who have spent several consecutive days in their place of work without returning each day to their place of residence.



The provisions of this agreement have effect from February 24 2020 and up to and including June 30 2020. It is then renewable at the end of each month, and will eventually cease to have effect when the two states have ended their travel warnings and restrictions.  



This agreement reflects the recommendations made by the OECD and is a pragmatic approach,  which should reassure cross-border commuters and contribute to legal clarity.



*Cross-border workers are those who are resident in a municipality within 20 kilometres from the borders of Canton Ticino, Grisons and Valais, where the individuals commute to render their services.



David Wigersma

E: dwigersma@deloitte.ch



Giuseppe Sarno

E: gsarno@deloitte.ch



more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR understands that UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves will announce a consultation on the proposed financial reward scheme, which had left advisers fretting
The long-running dispute centres on Medtronic’s use of the comparable uncontrolled transaction TP method; in other news, Paul Hastings and FTI Consulting both made double tax hires
The boutique Australian firm’s TP award recognition proves that world-class advisory services aren’t limited to the ‘big four’, the firm’s founder tells ITR
Canadian and Indian dual VAT models have been a source of inspiration for the Brazilian model, but the latter has unique and innovative features, the OECD paper claimed
More sophisticated use of technology, heightened TP scrutiny and stricter filing requirements are making South African Revenue Service audits a formidable challenge
The hire of Doug Wick expands Baker McKenzie’s state and local tax practice and adds to the firm’s growing ex-IRS expertise
One year after Nuwaru joined the WTS network, leaders James Jobson and Matthew Missaghi reflect on the firm’s mission to offer mid-tier pricing but deliver top-tier results
Join ITR's Head of Research, John Harrison, for an overview of key dates, new developments, best practices, and more for next year’s research cycle
The president’s tariff regime has already caused misery for taxpayers. Losing at the Supreme Court would mean it was all for nothing
The US itself was the biggest loser of tax revenue to American multinationals’ profit shifting, the Tax Justice Network reported; in other news, firms made key tax hires
Gift this article