642.21
VSTGLIALIP
CH
CH
Art. 61 Federal Act of October 13, 1965, on the Withholding Tax (WTA)
LIA; Chapitre 4 Dispositions pénales; A. Infractions; I. Soustraction d’impôt
Art. 61 LIA
Anyone who, intentionally or negligently, for their own benefit or that of a third party: a. evades amounts of withholding tax owed to the Confederation; b. fails to fulfill the obligation to declare a taxable benefit (Art. 19 and 20) or makes a false declaration; c. obtains an unjustified refund of the withholding tax, or any other unlawful tax benefit, is liable for tax evasion to a fine of up to 30,000 francs or, if the resulting amount is greater, up to three times the evaded tax, unless Art. 14 of the Federal Act of March 22, 1974, on Administrative Criminal Law is applicable.
Court Decisions Applying This Provision (30)
A-5250/2025 (Art. 61 Bst. a VStG)
Shareholder Liable for Withholding Tax on Dividend Distributions and De Facto Liquidation
Cited as the basis for the objective tax evasion offense, which is a prerequisite for applying Art. 12 Abs. 2 VStrR.
BE.2025.45 (Art. 61 lit. a VStG)
Tax Administration v. Bank Secrecy: Tax Evasion Investigation Authorized
This provision is cited as the basis for the suspicion of tax evasion, which is the underlying reason for the investigation and the request for unsealing.
BE.2021.16C (art. 61 let. a LIA)
Tax Investigation Documents Unsealing
Cited as a potential offense related to the administrative criminal procedure.
S2 2023 33 · zg (Art. 61 lit. a VStG)
Tax Administration v. Acquittal on Withholding Tax Evasion
The court upheld the acquittal of the defendant regarding the intentional and subsidiary negligent tax evasion under this provision.
BE.2021.15B (art. 61 let. a LIA)
Court Lifts Seal on Tax Evasion Investigation Documents
This article concerns tax evasion, an offense under administrative criminal proceedings by the AFC.
BE.2022.13 (Art. 61 lit. a VStG)
Federal Tax Administration v. Unsealing of Documents in Tax Evasion Investigation
Cited as a potential basis for the suspicion of withholding withholding tax, justifying the search and unsealing of documents.
S 2021 31 · zg (Art. 61 lit. a VStG)
Federal Tax Administration v. Tax Evasion Statute of Limitations
Cited in Dispositive 1 as the criminal provision on which the Defendant was previously convicted and regarding which the appeal decision had an effect on the legal consequence (guilty finding).
BE.2019.14 (Art. 61 lit. a VStG)
Federal Criminal Court Ruling on Sealing Tax Evasion Investigation Data
Cited as the legal basis for the suspicion of withholding withholding tax.
A-479/2021 (Art. 61 Bst. a VStG)
Hidden Profit Distributions Tax Liability
Establishes the offense of withholding tax evasion, which is a prerequisite for the obligation to pay tax under Art. 12 VStrR.
Jug.2021.175 · vd (art. 61 LIA)
Tax Fraud Conviction Upheld Despite Ne Bis In Idem and Statute of Limitations Claims
This article related to tax evasion is cited in the basis for the judgment, although the conviction was based on Art. 14 DPA (which supersedes it in cases of fraud).
BV.2020.31 (Art. 61 lit. a VStG)
Federal Criminal Court Upholds Property Seizure in Tax Evasion Probe
Cited as the basis for the suspicion of tax evasion, which is relevant for the seizure.
P1 18 77 · vs (art. 61 LIA)
Tax Fraud and Contribution Fraud Conviction Upheld Despite *Ne Bis In Idem* Challenge
Used in order 2 to establish the conviction for fraud in contribution matters, referencing the relevant provision for withholding tax evasion.
P/9003/2019 · ge (art. 61 let. a LIA)
Tax Evasion via Fictitious Royalties: Conviction Upheld
The core ruling confirms the appellant's conviction for intentional tax evasion under this article.
S2 19 81 · vs (Art. 61 Abs. 1 li. a ATSG)
Occupational Disease Recurrence Appeal Dismissed; Insurer Sanctioned for Poor File Management
Imposed court costs on the respondent due to significant extra effort caused by poor file management.
KGVS S2 19 81 · vs (Art. 61 Abs. 1 li. a ATSG)
Appeal Dismissed for Denied Recurrence Coverage of Occupational Tenosynovitis
Cited as the basis for imposing procedural costs on the respondent due to excessive workload caused by poor file management.