Publication Date: 13.11.2025
Overview
Author: Zeno Geisseler
Source: Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ.ch)
Publication Date: November 13, 2025
Reading Time: approx. 3 minutes
Summary
Following NZZ investigations into extensive data collection, Zurich Finance Director Ernst Stocker (SVP) defends his tax authorities' procedures for auditing taxpayers.
- The tax office demands mobile phone location data spanning several years, bank statements, medical treatment data, information about friends, and even party memberships for residence verification
- Stocker rejects accusations of a "tax Stasi" and emphasizes the proportionality of the measures
- 300 cases involving weekly residents and 200 other residence verifications annually among over one million taxpayers
- Only about 10 cases reach court annually, 8 of which the tax office wins
- Tax office chief Marina Züger claims citizens may redact "non-relevant details" – but contradicts her own documents demanding "complete, unredacted" information
- The Vasella case (2020) serves as justification, where the Zug Administrative Court legitimized similar data collection
- Three liberal parliamentarians have submitted a critical inquiry comparing the procedure to the surveillance files affair
Opportunities & Risks
Opportunities
- Effective combat against tax evasion in residence relocations
- Legal certainty through orientation to existing court practice
- High success rate in court strengthens tax authorities' position
Risks
- Massive intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding citizens
- Deterrent effect for companies and wealthy private individuals
- Loss of trust in rule-of-law proportionality
Looking Ahead
Short-term (1 year): Political debate in the Zurich cantonal parliament will scrutinize the procedure. Possibly intensified control of tax office practices.
Medium-term (5 years): Other cantons could adopt similar methods or deliberately distance themselves to create location advantages. Legal clarification by higher instances likely.
Long-term (10-20 years): Fundamental redefinition of the relationship between tax sovereignty and data protection in the digitized world. Nationwide regulation for data collection by tax authorities conceivable.
Fact Check
Solidly documented:
- Concrete figures on investigation cases and court proceedings
- Reference to existing court practice (Vasella case)
- Documented contradictions between statements by authority representatives and actual demands
Questionable or incomplete:
- Comparison with other cantons remains vague
[⚠️ Still to be verified] - Proportionality assessment is claimed but not substantiated
- Long-term effects on location attractiveness
[⚠️ Still to be verified]
Brief Conclusion
Zurich tax authorities collect private data in suspected cases to an extent reminiscent of state surveillance – and defend this as lawful and proportionate. The case exemplarily shows how the balance between efficient tax collection and civil rights shifts in the digital era. Political processing will show whether the Swiss legal order permanently tolerates such intrusions.
Three Critical Questions
Freedom vs. Treasury: Is it really proportionate to collect such intimate life data for tax investigations – or is the presumption of innocence being factually turned upside down here?
Responsibility without Control: Who actually controls how this sensitive data is used, stored, and protected from abuse – and why do the authority representatives contradict themselves in their own statements?
Transparency as a One-Way Street: While citizens must disclose their most intimate data "completely and unredacted," tax authority practices remain largely in the dark – is this still constitutional or already authoritarian?