Swiss committee backs director liability for unpaid payroll withholding

A parliamentary step, not a new charge

The committee backed the motion by ten votes to none, with two abstentions. The official motion printout retrieved on 20 October records completion of Council of States committee consideration. Its chronology records National Council adoption on 21 March 2025; the printout’s generation date is not a new tax event.^[1][2]

The motion asks the Federal Council to amend Articles 88(3) and 100(2) of the Federal Direct Tax Act of 14 December 1990 (LIFD, SR 642.11), and add a paragraph to Article 37 of the Tax Harmonisation Act of 14 December 1990 (LHID, SR 642.14). It targets non-payment by the company acting as tax substitute. It does not set a new withholding rate or final operative conditions for directors’ liability.^[2]

Separate deduction from remittance

In the LIFD text consolidated to 2 September 2026, Articles 88 and 100 assign withholding, certification and periodic remittance duties to the debtor of the taxable payment, which is responsible for payment. Article 37 of the LHID text dated 1 January 2025 similarly assigns collection and payment responsibilities to that debtor. These are dated statutory comparisons, not an exhaustive certification of subsequent amendments.^[3][4]

The motion cites Federal Supreme Court judgment 9C_619/2022 of 26 June 2023. In that historical 2014–2015 dispute, salary tax had actually been deducted but not fully remitted. The Court required credit for the deductions and rejected director liability without a sufficient statutory basis. It distinguished non-deduction from failure to transfer tax already withheld; the judgment is background, not the latest development.^[5]

Implications for multinational payroll teams

Our practical reading is that groups should distinguish payroll deductions from remittances when reviewing Swiss employer controls. The proposal concerns personal responsibility within the company, rather than a change to employee tax rates. Any implementing legislation would need a separate review of its scope, conditions and commencement; the committee recommendation itself supplies no operative start date.^[1][2][3]