Thank you for such a comprehensive reply 
Up to 10 years - ouch.
Given we are both relatively good earners it really looks like making sense to divorce but remain living together in the same apartment. I just hope this goes down OK with our current EinbĂŒrgerung :-/
What about the downsides? In the event someone dies (inheritance tax etc.) or other risks?
This could even be an advantage: you could fill up the pension of the lower paid person and then the higher paid person has more pension capacity to make contributions to re-fill the depleted pension pot and take more tax deductions. (this is assuming the split of the pension fund doesnât count as a withdrawal in the same way as for house deposit which needs to be paid back without further tax deduction).
It doesnât
Never seen it like this because when you are getting divorce, normaly you should get rid of your partner 
Canât give you advice, because Iâm not in your head. But if you want to divorce only for tax purpose, maybe you should think about it several time. I donât think this is worth in an emotional point of view. Specificaly if the wedding is something that was realy important for both of you despite the tax burden. There is several disadvantage not to be anymore married as said from @Cortana
Speaking of the devil, we are not married with my girlfriend for this tax burden. Altough I think we will in the near future because itâs something we really want despite this unique disadvantage.
4 Likes
Your tax burden may disappear with 1 or 2 children on the way ⊠the daycare cost deduction going with it !
If you want kids. Altough kids will cost more than the taxes that you will pay after having 1 or more children. But itâs a personal choice ! And for 2023, the daycare cost deduction is up to CHF 25â000 per children (art. 33 § 3 LIFD) 
It was CHF 10â000 in 2022. For 2024 is CHF 25â500 !
4 Likes
Yes, I was gutted that my peak âdaycare costâ years were just a few years too early!
What happens to investments in a divorce?
If partner A has 100â000 in stocks and partner B 100â000 in an account with 0% interest, and then they get married, and at the time of divorce the stocks have grown to 1m, I believe partner A gets to keep all of the stocks but has to give up half of dividends received during the marriage, correct?
What if the 100â000 were earned and invested (partner A) or put into the account (partner B) during marriage? Does partner A have to give up 500k stocks and partner B 50k of the savings account? Asked differently: when splitting assets which price is the one used to assess the value of a portfolio, the one paid when buying the share or the price at the time of divorce?
First case : No, because the dividends were reinvested to go to 1M so he doesnât keep all his stocks
Iâll try to be as concise as possible.
Case 1:
A owns 100 shares worth 100,000 before marriage.
During the marriage, dividends on these shares are reinvested in new shares. At the time of divorce, A owns 200 shares with a total value of 1,000,000. B will be entitled to half the shares acquired during the marriage, i.e. 50 shares (out of 150). She will therefore be entitled to 250,000.
Please note that if alimony (for B) and maintenance (for A and Bâs children) are payable, Aâs total income will be taken into account in determining the alimony and maintenance. Thus, if A has a salary of 150,000 and dividends (on the remaining 150 shares) of 20,000, then the determining income will be 170,000. This means higher contributions and a higher pension, regardless of whether or not the dividends will be stable in future years.
Case 2:
If the shares were acquired during the marriage (even if only with Aâs salary), each spouse will be entitled to half the value of the shares at the time the divorce is pronounced, i.e. 500,000 for A and 500,000 for B. The same applies to the 100,000 in the bank, 50,000 of which will go to A and 50,000 to B.
I had a case like this, fortunately for our client, his shares had lost 80% of their value 
Hope it helps. Feel free to disagree with me, this is a case I have rarely seen in divorce so I may not be up to date enough today if there has been a change or different decisions have been made based on your experience (friend who have been in this situation and divorced).
4 Likes
All depends on if the divorce is amicale or not.
If its amicable, the divorce convention will define what you keep based on what you give/share (ie.who keeps lives in the matrimonial house).
The main âguaranteeâ is that that pensions are split 50:50. Past that almost everything else can be negotiated if itâs amicable.
If itâs not: then it can get into case by case details, but financially speaking, you lose way more than the (equivalent) dividends if its a conflictuel divorce
Is the B case even valid if you have split account and do not invest from your joint account ?
Does a mariage with a prenup change anything in this case ?
I knew half of 2nd pillar will be due but not all investments !
Just for Gov level taxes, for Cantonal/Gemainde itâs still 10k, at least in ZH.
Itâs 25k in ZH as well starting this year:
1 Like
Thank you very much for your detailed answer!
Additional questions for case 2:
- Could A buy additional shares during marriage with money they had before marriage (âEigengutâ)? Would A even be able to prove they bought them not with money acquired during marriage but from before?
- Could A sell shares they had before the marriage and buy different shares with that cash and it would still could as their own assets (âErsatzbeschaffungâ)?
For SteuererklÀrung 2024 it will be 25k, so for the tax return that has to be submitted next year.
Thatâs what I said, no? Or did you just mean to clarify that this year doesnât mean itâs deductable in the tax returns due this year?
Yes. In the regime of participation aux acquĂȘts (basic regime), all Aâs income is Bâs income and vice versa. So anything bought with Aâs income also belongs to B and vice versa (sofa, TV, car, boxing gloves, headphones, saucepans, etc.).
So it doesnât matter if thereâs a marriage contract between the spouses that stipulates, for example, that A invests 50% of his salary in building up a stock portfolio for his retirement. If we are still under the regime of participation aux acquĂȘts, this 50% also belongs to B.
To change this, you need to change the matrimonial property regime. In Switzerland, there are two alternatives: separation of property and community of property.
So, if A saves 50% of his salary to build up savings and this is provided for in a marriage contract, but without changing the matrimonial property regime, his savings belong equally to B. The judge will take into account the fact that these savings were intended for the family and not for the individual alone. Indeed, the aim is to have a better life in retirement or throughout life as a couple, given that these savings can also be used to raise oneâs standard of living or for joint projects (purchase of a property, for example).
In my opinion, but Iâm not an expert, as long as youâre under the regime of participation aux acquĂȘts, it doesnât matter if thereâs a marriage contract that deviates on certain points from this regime, as long as the regime isnât different, everything invested by A during the marriage in his portfolio belongs to B too.
If you want to avoid this, you need to change the regime and get it validated!
Yes, if A can prove that the money used to buy the new shares was acquired before the marriage. E.g. A had a savings account of CHF 100,000, he uses these savings to buy new shares and can prove that the new shares were bought solely with this money (proof: transactions carried out via this savings account).
Yes. It must be assumed that if A had sold these X shares to buy a motorbike/car, for example, this motorbike/car would belong to him alone.
DISCLAIMER: Iâm not anymore in this field of law so if you want a good advice from an expert, you should take an appointment with them. My opinion here are based on my own knowledge as an old-trainee lawyer in this field
Yeah just meant to clarify, as many people are surprised that they canât put more than 10k in the tax declaration they need to send this year.
It might be a good idea to buy Accumulating ETF before getting married then.