Switzerland: Why the Swiss Corporate Tax Reform III needs to be aligned with BEPS

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

Switzerland: Why the Swiss Corporate Tax Reform III needs to be aligned with BEPS

rudolf.jpg

zulauf.jpg

Hans Rudolf Habermache


René Zulauf

Switzerland's Corporate Tax Reform III (CTR III) not only intends to make the country even more competitive internationally as a location for multinationals, but signifies a commitment to introduce a tax system that is aligned with international standards and virtually "BEPS-proof". Under the proposed reform, likely by 2019 or 2020, all Swiss special corporate tax regimes will be replaced by other measures, such as a step up for tax purposes, a patent box, or notional interest deduction (NID) on equity. In addition, it is expected that most cantons will reduce their headline tax rates significantly. All of these measures combined should provide companies with low tax rates and planning security until 2029 or 2030, so for up to 15 years from now.

While CTR III should be attractive for most companies in the future, there are potential implications of the BEPS project in relation to CTR III that have to be considered now. For example, multinationals in Switzerland often operate under a principal business model and may be affected by the OECD move to attribute a higher share of profit to group entities operating under a limited function and risk profile (for example, toll manufacturing or commissionaire structures). Particularly, the recently published discussion draft on permanent establishment (PE) status avoidance may either require changes to the business model or the principal company may be challenged on the basis of having PEs in a number of countries.

While there are structuring options to mitigate the tax impact of such PEs, they may adversely affect the principal company tax status of a Swiss company, which will only be phased out in 2019 or 2020. Companies affected may seek advice on how to best mitigate the gap in timing between BEPS outcomes and CTR III implementation.

Hans Rudolf Habermacher (hhabermacher@deloitte.ch) and René Zulauf (rzulauf@deloitte.ch)

Deloitte

Tel: +41 58 279 6327 and +41 58 279 6359

Website: www.deloitte.ch

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
Gift this article