The taxation of couples enters a new era

Switzerland has said yes to individual taxation. On 8 March 2026, the federal law was accepted by 54.23% of voters, according to the dossier of the Federal Tax Administration and the results relayed after the vote. The entry into force is planned by 2032: this delay may seem comfortable, but it already opens a preparation period for couples, the self-employed and family SMEs.

The change is simple to state, but profound in its effects: each taxpayer will be taxed separately, regardless of their marital status. For business leaders, this does not only concern the couple's private declaration. The reform also affects the way of thinking about remuneration, the net tax burden of a second income, wealth planning and, in some cases, the transfer of a company.

A national yes that ends a tax anomaly

The current system is based, for married couples, on joint taxation. The spouses' incomes are added together, then taxed according to a scale. In a progressive tax, this addition can push the household into a higher bracket and increase the bill compared to two unmarried people living in a comparable economic situation. This is what the public debate has called the marriage penalty.

Individual taxation breaks with this logic: marriage no longer determines the tax unit. Each person declares their own income and deductions according to the rules that will be specified in the implementation. For a dual-income couple, the change can significantly alter the economic calculation of an additional activity rate, a return to work or a salary increase. This is one of the reasons why the Federal Council supported the reform, considering that it corrects a tax inequality and encourages women's participation in the labour market.

The national result remained contested: 1,662,017 votes for, 1,401,166 against, with a turnout of 55.6%, according to the results published in the voting dossier. French-speaking Switzerland strongly supported the project: the yes reached 68.61% in the canton of Vaud, 67.83% in Geneva and 67.41% in Neuchâtel. For companies active in several cantons, this political contrast is not just an electoral curiosity: it reminds that concrete adaptation will also go through cantonal legislation.

Two taxpayers, two calculations: private joins business management

For a self-employed person or an SME owner, the boundary between private taxation and business decisions is rarely watertight. The choice to pay oneself a salary, distribute a dividend, involve the spouse in the activity or retain profits in the company involves management, taxation, pension planning and cash flow. With individual taxation, these arbitrations will have to be re-read through two separate tax situations.

In a family business, it is common for the spouse to participate in administration, sales, logistics, customer relations or internal accounting. When this activity is remunerated, the question will not only be what amount is bearable for the company. It will also be necessary to measure the effect of the salary on the tax burden of the person receiving it, on social contributions, on pension coverage and on the household's disposable income. The principle of prudence remains the same: remuneration must correspond to a real, documented and economically defensible activity.

The reform can also influence the perception of additional work. Today, in some couples, the second income is fiscally less attractive once added to the main income. Tomorrow, separate taxation should make the net effect of a personal income more readable. For an SME looking to recruit, increase an activity rate or retain qualified employees, this detail can matter: the gross salary is never judged alone, it is compared to the net income after tax, social charges and activity-related expenses.

Entrepreneurial couples: the spouse's remuneration to be re-examined

Relève PME has highlighted that entrepreneurial couples will need to rethink the distribution of their remuneration with the new system. This is probably one of the most concrete effects for fiduciaries: the schemes established for years will not necessarily be optimal, nor even coherent, once each spouse is taxed separately.

It is not about artificially rewriting the economic reality. It is rather about laying out the elements that already exist: who actually works in the company, with what responsibilities, at what rate, with what risk, and what remuneration would be coherent in view of the market and the company's means. This analysis also has an accounting scope. Salaries must be correctly accounted for, social charges treated, supporting documents kept, and flows between the company and private individuals clearly separated.

For companies owned by a couple, the reform also invites a review of medium-term plans. A business transfer, children entering the capital, a gradual sale or a partial withdrawal of the manager do not produce the same effects depending on how future incomes will be distributed. Individual taxation does not replace wealth planning, but it changes one of its central parameters: tax is no longer calculated around the couple as a single unit.

The self-employed not incorporated into a company will need to be particularly attentive. Their professional income is directly linked to their tax return. If the spouse actually contributes to the activity, the way of recognising this contribution can have chain effects: taxation, social insurance, coverage in case of activity decline and administrative organisation. Before any adaptation, a personalised examination remains essential.

Children, single incomes and cantons: simulations become key

The reform will not produce the same result for all households. Dual-income couples are among the profiles that could most clearly benefit from the change, as UBS noted in its explanations on the end of the marriage penalty. Conversely, the Federal Department of Finance mentioned concerns related to households where only one spouse receives an income. In these cases, the effect will depend on the scales, deductions and family configuration.

A quantified element is already announced at the level of direct federal tax: the child deduction will increase from 6,800 francs to 12,000 francs per child. This increase aims in particular to mitigate certain effects of the reform for families. For an SME or a self-employed person, this means that a serious tax simulation will need to integrate not only professional incomes but also the complete family situation: children, activity-related expenses, pension planning, private debts, property ownership and any ancillary income.

The cost of the reform for public finances is also estimated. According to the Federal Department of Finance, the expected revenue loss for direct federal tax amounts to approximately 630 million francs, of which 500 million for the Confederation and 130 million for the cantons. For companies, this figure does not mean an automatic increase elsewhere. It reminds, however, that the cantons will need to integrate the reform into their own fiscal and budgetary balances.

Cantonal modalities remain one of the major areas to follow. The cantons will have to adapt their tax legislation to the new system, and the practical details are not yet finalised. However, for a taxpayer, cantonal and communal tax often weighs heavily in the reality of the bill. A manager established in one canton, domiciled in another, or employing family members in several places, will have an interest in avoiding too hasty conclusions.

A long transition, but not a reason to wait

The entry into force planned by 2032 leaves several accounting exercises to prepare. This is a chance for SMEs: the effects of the reform can be tested in scenarios, without haste. Fiduciaries will have a central role in transforming a political reform into concrete decisions: tax burden simulations, review of family salaries, coordination with pension planning, anticipation of transfers and adaptation of declarative processes.

The administrative burden could also increase for some households, notably because spouses will have to operate with separate declarations. Zurich highlighted this point in its practical explanations on the reform. For couples whose incomes, debts, properties or participations are intertwined, the preparation of documents will need to be more rigorous. Keeping separate supporting documents, clarifying the bank accounts used and identifying own incomes will become useful reflexes.

Another factor imposes caution: according to Raiffeisen, a popular initiative from the Centre also aiming at the taxation of couples could still be submitted to a vote, which adds political uncertainty around the timetable and implementation. Companies should therefore not apply definitive solutions today, but they can already map out sensitive situations.

The right approach is to use the coming years to ask the right questions. Does the spouse work in the company without clear remuneration? Does the declared salary really correspond to the role exercised? Does the current structure remain suitable if each person is taxed separately? Do pension and transfer decisions take into account individualised incomes? These questions do not concern abstract optimisation: they affect the private cash flow of the manager, the company's investment capacity and the household's financial security.

Individual taxation does not only disrupt a line of the tax return. It changes the way work income, marital status and participation in the company are articulated. For Swiss SMEs, the challenge will be not to undergo this reform at the time of its entry into force, but to gradually integrate it into coherent, documented and case-by-case verified tax and wealth management.