The Transfer Pricing Law Review: Switzerland
Switzerland is a federal democracy. As such, the Swiss Federal Constitution grants both the federal government and the cantons the power to levy direct taxes. Federal income tax and corporate income tax are levied in accordance with the Federal Income Tax Act (FITA) of 14 December 1990. The cantons enact their own laws concerning cantonal income tax, wealth tax, corporate income tax and corporate capital tax, but these laws must conform to the Federal Tax Harmonisation Act (FTHA) of 14 December 1990.
The Federal Tax Administration is, however, competent to levy indirect taxes, such as withholding tax in accordance with the Withholding Tax Act (WTA) of 13 October 1965, stamp duties in accordance with the Stamp Tax Act (STA) of 27 June 1973 and value added tax (VAT) in accordance with the Value added Tax Act (VATA) of 12 June 2009.
As a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Switzerland has accepted the Transfer Pricing Guidelines developed by the OECD and is actively implementing the recommendations of the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.
Switzerland relies heavily on the Transfer Pricing Guidelines because it has no specific transfer pricing regulations. Accordingly, the Federal Tax Administration has instructed cantonal tax administrations to apply directly the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for all questions related to transfer pricing.2
In Switzerland, transfer price adjustment is based on the principle of the prohibition of harmful profit shifting between related parties. According to settled case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court,3 a transfer price can be adjusted when the following conditions are met:
- a company provided a benefit without receiving an adequate consideration in return;
- the benefit was provided to a shareholder or related party;
- the benefit would not have been granted to a third party; and
- the disproportion between the benefit and the consideration was recognisable for the company.
If all of these conditions are met, the tax authorities will consider that harmful profit shifting has occurred. Therefore, an adjustment would be justified without having to prove that it was the parties' intention to evade paying taxes.
As previously mentioned, Switzerland does not have a specific piece of legislation defining and addressing transfer pricing. However, certain Swiss federal and cantonal tax laws address related issues, such as the arm's-length principle and hidden equity. Such provisions for transfer price adjustment are included in most Swiss tax Acts governing income tax and corporate income tax,4 withholding tax5, stamp duties and VAT.6
Article 58 of FITA forbids the deduction of unjustified expenses, meaning that all transactions with shareholders and related parties must comply with the arm's-length principle. For tax purposes, these unjustified expenses may be reintegrated into the company's taxable profits and profits realised due to insufficient transfer prices may be requalified as hidden dividend distributions. Shareholders are subject to income tax or corporate income tax on any constructive dividends.
Furthermore, hidden dividend distributions executed by a Swiss entity trigger a withholding tax of 35 per cent (in accordance with Article 4, Paragraph 1, letter (b) WTA); if the withholding tax is not borne by the beneficiary, then the withholding tax is levied at the gross-up rate of 54 per cent. Beneficiaries of the constructive dividends may nevertheless request a total or partial reimbursement based on Swiss internal law (Article 24 WTA) or an applicable double tax agreement. A notification procedure to notify instead of paying the withholding tax may also be available under certain conditions.
In the event of a hidden capital contribution, the capital contribution may be subject to stamp duty tax of 1 per cent (Article 5, Paragraph 2, letter (a) STA).
The Federal Tax Administration also issues directives in the form of circulars and circular letters that provide guidance on transfer pricing and related topics. These cover safe-harbour rules (thin-capitalisation and interest rates),7 service companies,8 evidence of commercially justified expenses in foreign businesses9 and restructuring.10
The VAT Act of 12 June 2009 is the only legislation that explicitly requires that transactions between related parties be at arm's length. It also defines the notion of 'related parties' for VAT purposes as:
- the owners of at least 20 per cent of the nominal or basic capital of a business or of an equivalent participation in a partnership, or persons associated with them; or
- foundations and associations where there exists a particularly close economic, contractual or personal relationship (pension schemes are not regarded as concerning related parties).11
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has defined the notion of 'related parties' as entities or persons with a close commercial or personal relationship,12 which it interprets very broadly. In particular, the Court considers that the granting of a service under unusual terms or conditions that do not reflect the market is an indication that there is a close relationship between the parties.13 It is thus vital to determine whether the transaction was conducted under certain conditions due to the parties' close relationship, or if the same conditions would have been required between independent parties.
There is no explicit list of documents to be included in the tax filing in relation to transfer pricing issues. However, tax authorities may dispute certain transfer prices applied, and the taxpayer must demonstrate that the prices used in the transaction with a related party comply with the arm's-length principle and he or she must be able to provide commercial justification.
Since 1 December 2017, Swiss tax law requires multinational companies to submit a country-by-country report that complies with the requirements of Annex III to Chapter V of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Submissions are not published and there is no initiative from lawmakers suggesting future publication.
Presenting the case
i Pricing methods
Switzerland relies on the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines concerning pricing methods.
Taxpayers may select the appropriate OECD-compliant pricing method to determine the arm's-length price. This includes traditional transaction methods, such as the comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP method), the resale price method and the cost plus method. Transactional profit methods, such as the transactional net margin method and the transactional profit split method, are also acceptable. The global formulary apportionment method is not considered OECD-compliant.
There is no hierarchy between the methods. The comparable uncontrolled price method is the preferred method and the transactional net margin method is the most common method.14 Under the CUP method, near comparables are required to compare transactions in a proper manner and can be adjusted because the exact same criteria for comparison cannot be completely fulfilled.
ii Authority scrutiny and evidence gathering
The cantonal tax authorities are responsible for assessing direct federal and cantonal taxes and the Federal Tax Administration plays a supervisory role. The Federal Tax Administration is, however, responsible for controlling withholding tax, stamp duties and VAT. Owing to their legal powers, the various tax authorities may audit taxpayers.
Administrative authorities issue tax assessments, and therefore evidence is usually gathered through a request for information directly addressed to taxpayers. Witnesses are rarely involved in such procedures. Accordingly, taxpayers should retain all documents necessary to prove that transfer prices complied with the arm's-length principle. The burden of proof lies with the taxpayer for the justification of the expenses, and with the tax authorities regarding adjustments that increase the taxpayer's taxable income. Global transfer pricing positions applied by multinational group can be provided as evidence to the tax authorities and are usually more successful if their results comply with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of audits performed by Swiss tax authorities.
Swiss tax legislation does not contain specific provisions relating to transfer pricing of intangible assets or hard-to-value intangible assets. Switzerland follows the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for transactions involving intangible assets.
In Switzerland, tax rulings are a common practice and advance pricing agreements (APAs) can be concluded with the tax authorities even though domestic tax law does not contain specific provisions. Taxpayers may request advance rulings from the Swiss tax authorities to determine how they will be subject to Swiss taxes and how much they will owe in Swiss taxes. Advance rulings are protected by the principle of good faith and bind the tax authorities if certain criteria, such as full disclosure from taxpayers and no modification of the applicable law, are met.
Bilateral or multilateral APAs are also possible in coordination with the State Secretariat for International Finance (SIF).
Since Switzerland is a federal state, often it is necessary to request a minimum of two rulings in transfer pricing cases.15 A ruling regarding withholding tax or stamp duty (or both) must be requested from the Federal Tax Administration, and a second ruling with regard to corporate income tax must be requested from the competent cantonal tax administration. In general, no fees are charged, but certain cantons levy fees.
The duration of APA procedures varies widely. The time necessary to receive a unilateral APA ranges from a few days to several months, depending on the complexity of the case and the competent tax administration. For bilateral or multilateral agreements, the duration is counted in years. The average duration of mutual agreement procedures concerning APAs closed in 2020 was 20 months.16 This average has decreased by one month compared with 2019, nine months compared with 2018 and 12 months compared with 2017. Although there is currently no OECD requirement for the duration of APAs, Switzerland considers such procedures essential for legal certainty and the attractiveness of Switzerland as a business location.17 Therefore, Switzerland is striving to speed up APA procedures, while at the same time giving priority to achieving the best possible results in each case.
In addition to providing legal certainty for complex and high-risk transactions and preventing double taxation, the system of advance rulings reduces the number of tax-related disputes that are litigated before the courts. However, it is important to consider the exchange of information aspect before filing a ruling request as Switzerland is part of the international spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings, even if the ruling itself will not be exchanged. Therefore, the possible consequences of an APA request must be carefully considered.
Mutual agreement procedures (MAPs) and international arbitration may also be used in an international dispute. Switzerland adopted the Multilateral Instrument on 1 December 2019 and agreed on the implementation of the minimum standards, including on MAPs and binding arbitration, with certain reservations. Consequently, when the competent authorities have been unable to reach a MAP, taxpayers may submit their case to arbitration within three years.
The Swiss tax authorities do not usually perform transfer pricing investigations. However, on the basis of the ordinary taxation procedure for direct taxes, the assessment authorities shall review the taxpayer declaration and carry out the necessary investigations (Article 130, Paragraph 1 FITA).
In particular, the Swiss tax authorities are allowed to review information submitted by the taxpayer under its yearly tax return and request additional information. This is related to the Swiss tax authorities' obligation to determine all the relevant facts to assess the taxation and to take into consideration only facts that they consider as proven.
Swiss taxpayers submit yearly tax returns on a self-assessment basis. In this respect, the Swiss tax authorities can also consider that the tax return is complete and that no further investigation is necessary. Investigations are therefore not automatic, including for transfer pricing issues.
Regarding indirect taxes, such as withholding tax, stamp duties or VAT, taxpayers proceed with spontaneous declarations (e.g., filing of official formulas or VAT tax returns) and payment of the amount of taxes due to the tax authorities. The Federal Tax Administration can, however, conduct tax audits to make sure the taxpayers have fulfilled their legal obligations to proceed with the required notifications and payments of taxes (Article 40, Paragraph 1 WTA; Article 30, Paragraph 1 STA; Article 78, Paragraph 1 VATA).
Swiss tax authorities can open an investigation following submission of the tax return for the relevant tax period or when they receive a new piece of information for taxation that was previously unknown to them. The time limit for tax authorities to proceed with investigations depends on the tax concerned.
For corporate income tax, this right is generally limited to 10 years and can be extended by up to 15 years by the tax authorities after the close of the relevant tax period. Indeed, the 10-year statute of limitations can be interrupted by various official acts, such as a complaint, an appeal or revision proceedings (Article 120, Paragraph 2 FITA). This includes any official communications from the tax authorities to the taxpayer that aims at interrupting the statute of limitations. In practice, a simple written letter announcing the interruption is usually sufficient, even in cases where a tax assessment has yet to be issued.
For withholding tax and stamp duties, this right is generally limited to five years after the end of the calendar year in which the tax claim arose. Unlike corporate income tax, there is no absolute statute of limitations. As a result, the tax authorities can interrupt the five-year period by official communications without limitation, unless they act against the general principle of good faith.
For VAT, this right is generally limited to five years and can be extended up to 10 years after the end of the relevant tax period. As corporate income tax, the five-year statute of limitation can be interrupted by official acts performed either by the tax authorities or by the taxpayers.
Taxpayers can adjust their yearly tax return for corporate income tax, once submitted, as long as the cantonal tax authorities have not issued a final tax assessment. After receiving the final tax assessment, taxpayers can lodge a written formal complaint against the assessment notice with the assessment authority within 30 days. If the formal complaint is brought against a tax notice that sets out extensive grounds, the formal complaint may, with the consent of the appellant and the other petitioners, be referred directly as an appeal to the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission (Article 132, Paragraph 2 FITA).
After receiving a written formal complaint, cantonal tax authorities may proceed with new tax assessments and may adjust their first decision in favour or in disfavour of the taxpayer. Once the decision on the complaint (a second decision taken by the tax authorities after the first tax assessment) is notified to the taxpayer, the latter has 30 days to lodge an appeal against this decision to the competent Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission (Article 140, Paragraph 1 FITA).
When taxpayers receive decisions in the fields of withholding tax, stamp duties or VAT, they have 30 days to lodge a written formal complaint with the assessment authority (Article 42, Paragraph 1 WTA; Article 39, Paragraph 1 STA; Article 83, Paragraph 1 VATA). As a rule, after the receipt of the decision on the complaint, in favour or in disfavour of the taxpayers, an appeal can be lodged against this decision to the Federal Administrative Court.
Following the notification of a decision from the highest cantonal Tax Appeals Commission or from the Federal Administrative Court, a new deadline of 30 days applies for the taxpayer or concerned tax authorities to lodge an appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
For corporate income tax purposes, the general limitation period of 10 years after the close of the relevant tax period can be extended to 15 years, following an official act interrupting the statute of limitations. The same applies to VAT with a general limitation period of five years, extensible up to 10 years if officially interrupted. For withholding tax and stamp duty purposes, the general limitation period of five years, starting after the end of the calendar year in which the tax claim arose, does not suffer any limitation if officially interrupted.
A final tax decision related to direct or indirect taxes can also be revised in favour of the taxpayer, provided certain conditions are fulfilled (e.g., significant facts or decisive evidence is discovered (Article 147, Paragraph 1 FITA; Article 66, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Administrative Procedure Act)). This procedure must, however, be filed either within 90 days of discovery of the grounds for revision or, at the latest, within 10 years of notification of the final tax decision (Article 148 FITA; Article 67, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act).
Upon submission of their yearly tax return for corporate income tax purposes, taxpayers can generally expect to receive a final tax decision from the tax authorities within one to two years. This timeline mostly depends on the tax authorities' requests for information and the taxpayers' cooperation with tax assessment decisions. If the taxpayer does not agree to the specified taxation and lodges a written appeal with the tax authorities, this procedure can take up to an additional two years. A later appeal to the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission is generally subject to the same waiting period.
As a result, after receipt of the first tax decision from the tax authorities, a procedural process with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court generally lasts from six to eight years.
The initial process before the tax authorities (submission of the tax return and written formal complaint to the same tax authorities) generally allows taxpayers to disclose all relevant facts and evidence. Even once the procedure goes before the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission, new evidence is still acceptable as the Commission has powers to review all facts and the law (Article 142, Paragraph 4 FITA). The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is, however, restricted in its power to review the facts. Expert witnesses are rarely used in practice in tax litigation.
ii Recent cases
Few cases involving transfer pricing issues are ruled in Switzerland on a yearly basis. The most recent cases ruled by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court are described below.
In the first case,18 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court addressed the question of safe haven interest rates paid on loans agreed between a Swiss entity and its German investors that previously held non-voting shares. The conversion of the entity into a limited liability company involved the conversion of the German investors' non-voting shares into participating loans. An interest rate of 7 per cent, including a fixed interest rate and a success fee (based on the turnover or cash flow generated by the Swiss entity), applied to these participating loans and was paid by the Swiss entity. In this case, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court discussed the applicability of safe-haven interest rates, officially published by the Federal Tax Administration under its circulars on a yearly basis, to participating loans. As a rule, for loans granted by Swiss entities to shareholders or related parties, a maximum interest rate applies. If taxpayers do not comply with such maximum interest rate, the tax authorities can requalify excessive interests as hidden dividend distributions, except if the taxpayer provides sufficient evidence that the interest rates he or she applied are compliant with the arm's-length principle. In the opinion of the Court, participating loans are different from ordinary loans allowing, if commercially justified, higher interest rates than those published under the official circulars. However, as ruled by the previous jurisdictions, the taxpayer failed to provide sufficient commercial evidence. In particular, the Court considered that German investors were previously holders of non-voting shares and that the high interest rates were only applied because of their close relationship with the Swiss entity without any commercial justification. Therefore, the 7 per cent interest rate was excessive and the Court confirmed the qualification of hidden dividend distributions made by the Swiss entity.
The second case19 involves a Swiss entity providing services to other group entities. An exclusive distribution agreement was entered into between the Swiss entity and some related entities located in the British Virgin Islands and Guernsey. The Guernsey entity agreed to supply certain products to the other entities, including the Swiss entity, during a period of 10 years. As a result, the other entities (distributors) sold the products on behalf of the Guernsey entity. Payment of invoices issued by the Swiss entity and corresponding to sale transactions were, however, directly paid to other distributors. This situation raised the question of hidden dividend distributions due to the impoverishment of the Swiss entity and direct payment of selling activities to other group entities. Under their claim, the taxpayers argued that the selling profit was not attributable to the Swiss entity but to the foreign entities and the non-fulfilment of one of the criteria to qualify as a hidden dividend distribution (i.e., the disproportion between the benefit and the consideration is recognisable for the company). In the opinion of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the Swiss company was directly involved in the selling transactions and the disproportion, due to the unusual nature of the discussed payments, was recognisable for the company. Consequently, the taxpayers failed to prove that the transactions complied with the arm's-length principle and the Court confirmed hidden dividend distributions made by the Swiss entity.
Secondary adjustment and penalties
Provided a non-arm's-length transaction is considered by the tax authorities (e.g., excessive interests paid or insufficient interests received on an inter-company loan amount with a Swiss entity), such transaction would be requalified as a hidden dividend distribution, triggering Swiss withholding tax of 35 per cent. Accordingly, the Swiss entity's profits may be adjusted to comply with the arm's-length principle. In such a scenario, any secondary adjustments (e.g., transfer of an amount representing the adjustment to a foreign parent or related entity) would also trigger this 35 per cent withholding tax (or 54 per cent if not paid directly by the transaction's beneficiary), if not agreed in a mutual agreement procedure.
A partial or full reimbursement of the withholding tax withheld may be claimed in accordance with double tax treaties and Swiss internal law. Late interest fees of 5 per cent may also be applicable without a possibility to claim full or partial reimbursement.
Aside from the penalties for non-compliance with the CbC reporting obligation, there are no specific transfer pricing penalties, but general penalty rules apply. Under the ordinary tax procedure and if the tax authorities consider a non-arm's-length transaction, payment of late interest fees is privileged compared with penalties, which are unusual in practice. In the case of tax fraud, penalties may, however, occur.
Penalties are generally assessed in view of the taxpayer's fault. It can be challenged during the administrative or criminal procedure by relevant evidence or facts, or during later legal proceedings in front of the Swiss courts up to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Broader taxation issues
i Diverted profits tax, digital sales taxes and other supplementary measures
Under Swiss tax law, there is no specific regulation about transfer pricing issues. Tax authorities should, however, follow OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines as disclosed under Circular No. 4 of the Swiss Federal Tax Administration, dated 1997, revised in 2004. This Circular provides a general application of the arm's-length principle to determinate taxable income of service companies. These general principles have not been supplemented by any other domestic regulations.
Switzerland is actively involved in the OECD discussions on taxing the digitalised economy. The implementation of these future rules is currently unknown.
ii Tax challenges arising from digitalisation
New rules discussed at OECD level on taxing the digitalised economy involve a modification of the profit allocation mechanism (Pillar One) and a minimum tax rate for groups (Pillar Two). A multilateral approach is privileged by Swiss authorities against domestic measures that could create uncertainty on the taxation of digitalised businesses. In particular, it is expected that these new rules may reduce profits allocated to Switzerland. While supporting the introduction of both Pillars, Switzerland is thus actively engaged in the discussions to ensure a fair application of these new rules.20
Under Pillar One, and as profits may shift to market jurisdictions, the Swiss authorities indicated that the future set of rules shall comply with the arm's-length principle and shall focus on value creation. Regarding Pillar Two, a recommendation of a modest minimum rate would be acceptable for Swiss authorities. However, domestic tax rates shall be considered under this new set of rules, in particular for small jurisdictions such as Switzerland.
iii Transfer pricing implications of covid-19
The Swiss authorities have not amended the current Swiss regulation due to covid-19. Cantonal and federal tax authorities have, however, published a list of frequently asked questions on their respective websites to help taxpayers and explain the covid-19's implications on the applicable tax law.
As a rule, the tax authorities should follow the OECD guidelines and apply the updated OECD guidance on the tax treaty applications issued in January 2022. There is, however, no certainty that this guidance will be followed by Swiss authorities, in particular the cantonal tax authorities, because their practice may differ depending on the case at hand. Extraordinary circumstances should, however, be taken into account when reviewing any potential tax liability.
Switzerland has concluded agreements with other countries, such as France,21 to mitigate the creation of permanent establishments by employees who work from home.
iv Double taxation
Switzerland has concluded double taxation treaties (DTT) with over 90 countries. If double taxation occurs with a country Switzerland signed a DTT with or if there is a risk of double taxation occurring, Swiss resident taxpayers, both individuals and corporations, can ask the Federal Department of Finance in Bern to initiate a mutual agreement procedure.
In accordance with the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital (OECD MC), taxpayers can initiate a mutual agreement procedure within three years of the first notification of the action resulting in double taxation (Article 25, Paragraph 1 OECD MC). Most DTT concluded with Switzerland provide this three-year time limit, but each double taxation treaty must first be reviewed.
An arbitration procedure is also available under a number of double taxation treaties concluded with Switzerland. In general and in contradiction with mutual agreement procedures, taxpayers can only file a request for arbitration with one of the competent authorities, for example, if an agreement has not been reached under the mutual agreement procedure after two years (Article 25, Paragraph 5 OECD MC).
To avoid double taxation, taxpayers can also request a ruling with the Swiss tax authorities before a transfer pricing transaction occurs. Swiss taxpayers generally choose this route; however, provided a foreign country decides to adjust a transfer pricing transaction, double taxation may still occur. In this respect, APAs can also be chosen by Swiss taxpayers to confirm the tax treatment under the relevant double tax treaty, and obtain an agreement between Swiss tax authorities and foreign tax authorities.
v Consequential impact for other taxes
Transfer pricing adjustments are generally analysed from an income tax and withholding tax perspective but VAT consequences also need to be addressed. Under the Swiss Federal VAT Act, the arm's-length principle also applies to transactions between related parties. Consequently, an adjustment required by the tax authorities may have an impact on the tax levied. Penalties and interests may also apply if an adjustment is discovered during an audit conducted by the Federal Tax Administration.
Outlook and conclusions
Even if Switzerland does not have any specific transfer pricing legislation, Swiss authorities, including both the administration and the courts, are increasingly influenced by the OECD, which includes, as mentioned, the BEPS project and the taxation of digital economy. This means that any taxpayer active in Switzerland should remain extremely cautious when dealing with transfer pricing issues and should always take into account the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, including the most recent OECD development related to covid-19 or multilateral instruments that aim to mitigate harmful profit shifting.
1 Jean-Blaise Eckert is a partner and Jenny Benoit-Gonin is a senior associate at Lenz & Staehelin.
2 Federal Tax Administration, Circular letter of 4 March 1997; renewed by Circular No. 4 of 19 March 2004.
3 Swiss Federal Supreme Court ATF 115 Ib 274, Section 9b.
4 Article 58 FITA for corporate income tax at the federal level; Article 24 FTHA for corporate income tax at cantonal and municipal level.
5 Article 4, Paragraph 1 WTA and Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Withholding Tax Ordinance of 19 December 1966 for the taxation of constructive dividends.
6 Article 24, Paragraph 2 VATA.
7 Circular No. 6 of 6 June 1997.
8 Circular No. 4 of 19 March 2004.
9 Circular No. 49 of 13 July 2020.
10 Circular No. 5 of 1 March 2004.
11 Article 3, letter (h) of the VATA.
12 Swiss Federal Supreme Court 2C_177/2016, 30 January 2017, Section 4.3.
14 Greter M, Häni M, Streule F and Dietschi M, 'Transfer Pricing in Switzerland: Overview' (Thomson Reuters Practical Law) https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-007-3885?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1, accessed 21 April 2022.
15 Bottini P, Schreiber S, Lehmann D and Mühlemann M, 'Transfer Pricing in Switzerland' (Law Business Research, Lexology, 29 April 2019).
16 SIF, 'Les procédures amiables fondées sur les conventions contre les doubles impositions conclues par la Suisse – Statistiques 2020', 29 December 2021.
18 Swiss Federal Supreme Court 2C_578/2019, 31 March 2020.
19 Swiss Federal Supreme Court 2C_498/2020, 14 January 2021.
20 Letter from the President of the Swiss Confederation, Ueli Maurer, dated 13 December 2019 sent to the OECD Secretary-General, José Angel Gurria.
21 Mutual agreement between Switzerland and France dated from 13 May 2020 regarding measures undertaken against the spread of covid-19.