On 2 June 2026, the Federal Supreme Court issued an important judgement on Swiss securities transfer tax. The decision addresses the question of whether a Liechtenstein single-investor fund – i.e., a Liechtenstein collective investment scheme with only one investor – qualifies as securities transfer tax exempt investor. Below, we explain the decision and its implications for securities dealers and investors from a securities transfer tax perspective.
General remarks on Swiss securities transfer tax
The transfer of ownership of taxable securities for consideration is subject to Swiss securities transfer tax if a securities dealer for Swiss securities transfer tax purposes is involved in the transaction as a contracting party or intermediary. The securities dealer is generally liable for half the tax for each contracting party that does not identify itself as a registered securities dealer or as an exempt investor. Exempt investors include, among others, domestic and foreign collective investment schemes. Therefore, a fund's qualification as an exempt investor is of central importance.
Background
Until now, it was disputed whether the qualification as an exempt investor also applied to Liechtenstein single-investor funds. The Swiss Federal Tax Administration (SFTA) and the Federal Administrative Court held the view that Liechtenstein funds must meet the same requirements as domestic collective investment schemes. Since Swiss law permits single-investor funds only for a limited group of qualified investors - supervised insurance institutions, public-law entities, or pension funds with professional treasury departments - a Liechtenstein single-investor fund whose investors do not fall into this category would not qualify as an exempt investor.
In the specific case, a Swiss securities dealer, who does not belong to the limited group of qualified investors, was the sole investor in a Liechtenstein fund. The SFTA directly attributed the fund's securities transactions to the investor and levied the Swiss securities transfer tax.
The lower court also had to determine whether a Liechtenstein fund qualifies as a domestic or foreign collective investment scheme for Swiss securities transfer tax purposes. For the purposes of stamp duty, the Principality of Liechtenstein is considered domestic territory due to its connection to the Swiss customs territory. However, the Federal Administrative Court argued that, based on financial market supervisory regulations, according to which the Principality of Liechtenstein is not part of the Swiss territory, a Liechtenstein fund qualifies as a foreign collective investment scheme.
Federal Supreme Court cecision
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the Liechtenstein single-investor fund qualifies as a foreign collective investment scheme and therefore as exempt investor. The court essentially argued as follows:
- The Stamp Duty Act contains two separate, independent exemption provisions: one for domestic and one for foreign collective investment schemes. The requirements for domestic funds cannot simply be transferred to foreign funds.
- The legal definition of foreign collective investment schemes is deliberately broader than that for domestic ones. This is evident both from the systematic structure of the law and from the parliamentary debate, which explicitly referred to single-investor funds from Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
- The Federal Supreme Court also relied on Circular No. 24 of the SFTA itself, according to which foreign single-investor funds are accepted for Swiss tax purposes, provided the competent foreign supervisory authority accepts them. The Liechtenstein supervisory authority is listed on the relevant SFTA list. All Liechtenstein funds, and consequently also Liechtenstein single-investor funds, are subject to supervision by the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) and therefore qualify as investors exempt from Swiss securities transfer tax.
Recommendation
The decision clarifies a significant issue for the financial center: Foreign single-investor funds qualify as investors exempt from Swiss securities transfer tax if they are accepted as collective investment schemes by the competent foreign supervisory authority – regardless of whether the individual investor would be considered a qualified investor under Swiss law. We recommend that affected securities dealers and investors check whether Swiss securities transfer tax was wrongly levied in the past in connection with foreign single-investor funds and whether refund claims can be made.
The Federal Supreme Court also did not have to rule on what form of supervision is required for a single-investor fund abroad to qualify as a foreign collective investment scheme. Therefore, a case-by-case assessment is still recommended.
Contact us
Silvan Camenzind