Tax: Changing the foundations
Recent changes have liberalised the Swiss foundation law, bringing in greater tax advantages
April 26, 2006 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
Switzerland's Foundation Law changed at the beginning of this year, thanks to a raft of statutory amendments which liberalised the regime. Under the Swiss federal tax law, the limit on tax deductions for donations to charitable foundations has been increased from 10% to 20% of the net income (natural persons) or the net profits (legal entities) of donors. The cantons are still allowed to set their own limits. Under the previous law, only cash contributions were deductible. Now, however, the value of donations of other kinds of assets is also deductible. Consequently, the making of other kinds of donations, especially real estate, intangible property (e.g. software) and artworks, will be simplified and promoted.
The law now recognises, for the first time, that charitable foundations do not render a service subject to VAT if they list the name of the donor and the name of his or her company or its logo in a neutral form in publications (such as advertising). The same applies if the beneficiary of a charitable foundation refers to the charitable foundation in publications in the same manner. According to the revised laws, donations of money or property with a value of up to 20% of the net profits of a corporation, limited liability company or a mutual company to a charitable organisation may be justified as business expenses and should, therefore, not be considered a concealed profit distributed to a closely related third-party.
The law also introduced a new audit requirement. An independent auditor must review the accounting records and assets of a foundation annually and issue an audit report. In order to make the audit possible, the law also includes a new obligation to maintain accounting records and imposes the same recordkeeping requirements applicable to corporations on foundations. The Federal Council issued a regulation concerning the independent auditors of foundations which exempts some foundations from the audit requirement and imposes more stringent requirements on others. The relevant supervisory authority can excuse a foundation from the audit requirement if it does not publicly seek donations and for two consecutive years its total assets were less than SFR200,000 (£90,000).
Foundations which (i) publicly solicit donations and in two consecutive fiscal years have received donations in excess of SFR100,000 (£45,000); (ii) in two consecutive fiscal years exceed two of the following measures: total assets in excess of SFR10 million (£4m), turnover in excess of SFR20 million (£8m), 50 full-time employees; (iii) are required to prepare consolidated financial reports; or (iv) have outstanding debt securities, are required to appoint a specially qualified auditor. The new audit requirements should lead to more transparency and reduce the work of supervisory authorities. It should increase the public's confidence in foundations, especially charitable ones.
The previous Foundation Law lacked a catalogue of duties to be observed in the case of over-indebtedness or impending insolvency. Now the law borrows the rule from corporate law that the ultimate management body is required to prepare interim balance sheets based on liquidation values and to deliver them to the auditors if there are justifiable reasons to believe the foundation is over-indebted or over the longer term can no longer meet its obligations. If the auditors determine that the foundation is, in fact, over-indebted or that it cannot meet its obligations over the long term, the interim balance sheet must be submitted to the supervisory authority. The supervisory authority will require the ultimate management body to initiate remedial measures and if it does not do so, the supervisory authority will itself initiate these measures.
Significant flexibility is provided by the introduction of the concept of a reservation of the right to change the purpose of the foundation. A donor can, at the time of establishment of the foundation, reserve the right to change its purpose. This makes it possible, after the lapse of 10 years from establishment or, if applicable, the last change of purpose, for a change of purposes to be made by the responsible federal or cantonal authority at the donor's request. If the foundation has a charitable or public purpose and is therefore not subject to taxation, then the new purpose must continue to make its tax-free status possible. If the foundation was established by a donor which is a legal entity, then the right to change the foundation's purpose expires after 20 years. The Association of Grantmaking Foundations in Switzerland issued its Swiss Code of Best Foundations Practice which sets forth 22 recommendations for the good governance of foundations.
The liberalisation of the Foundation Law is essentially positive. It results in more readily available tax advantages. The introduction of minimum accounting standards and mandatory audits increases transparency. The regulations concerning over-indebtedness and insolvency are a first step towards improved protections for creditors. Overall, the liberalisation helps Switzerland maintain its leading position for such institutions and has made Swiss foundations significantly more attractive.
Dr Ueli Sommer is a managing associate at Walder Wyss & Partners in Zurich.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFidal Launches Disputes Practice; Pinsent’s Paris Arbitration Partner Jumps to Boutique Firm, Plus Other French Moves
5 minute readTop Labor Lawyer and Former Germany Managing Partner Leaves A&O Shearman to Found Boutique Firm
3 minute readNoerr’s Former Polish Office Merges With Big Professional Services Firm Eying German-Speaking Clients
3 minute readUS-Based Smith, Gambrell & Russell Expands to Italy With Cross-Border Transactional Attorneys
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
- 5Will a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to a Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250