In Switzerland, as in most European civil-law countries, succession planning is shaped by a cultural tradition valuing stability and the preservation of family wealth over generations. Estate planning in Switzerland is therefore mostly centred on family. Indeed, although freedom of testation exists in Switzerland, it is significantly restricted by tax rules, which mostly prioritise spouses and descendants, as well as by forced heirship rules, which apply to half of the estate.

However, the Swiss legal framework has evolved towards a more flexible approach in the past years, as the portion of the estate subject to forced heirship was reduced in 2023 from three-quarters to one-half of the estate, reflecting a broader societal shift towards greater testamentary freedom in succession planning. Moreover, as wealthy families become more internationally mobile and globalised, there is a discernible shift towards more flexible succession planning techniques, including the implementation of trusts and similar wealth-structuring arrangements.

Similarly, there are an increasing number of non-traditional or blended families, non-married long-term partners, and cross-border couples and families. These situations pose challenges because Swiss statutory rules still reflect traditional family models. As a result, clients are becoming progressively aware that tailored planning through wills, (marital) agreements and succession agreements is essential to avoid outcomes that do not match their family reality.

Despite these developments, it is still not uncommon for high net worth individuals to pass away in Switzerland with little or no structured succession planning, relying primarily on intestacy rules. Although such an approach may be workable within traditional Swiss family settings, it sometimes leads, especially in more international family configurations, to significant legal and practical complications.

Wealth profiles in Switzerland are diverse and include both long-established families rooted in traditional sectors and internationally mobile individuals who have created wealth more recently in different sectors.

Historically, Swiss wealth has been concentrated in families active in clearly defined sectors, in particular banking and finance, watchmaking, pharmaceuticals and certain industrial fields. These families generally prioritise long-term wealth preservation and the continuity of family assets across generations. Estate planning in such contexts is therefore typically characterised by sophisticated structures designed to safeguard and transmit wealth over time.

In recent decades, new fortunes have emerged in Switzerland, notably in the technology and financial services sectors. Many entrepreneurs, start-up founders and international executives have chosen to settle in Switzerland owing to the country’s political and economic stability, high-quality education system, excellent standard of living and, naturally, also for tax reasons. These individuals frequently present cross-border family situations and hold assets located in multiple jurisdictions. They therefore seek wealth and succession planning tailored to this international dimension and, at times, greater flexibility reflecting the mobility of family members.

Consequently, historical and industrial background, as well as the age profile of wealthy individuals, inevitably influences the type of planning structures they choose to implement.

Domicile under Swiss law refers to the place in which a person resides with the intention of settling; residence for the purpose of education or the accommodation of a person in an educative institution or care home, a hospital or a penal institution does not by itself establish domicile.

In Switzerland, no inheritance tax is levied at the federal level. It is therefore solely governed by cantonal law and consequently the applicable rules vary from canton to canton. For inheritance and estate tax, unlimited tax liability generally arises if the deceased’s last domicile was in Switzerland, resulting in Swiss taxation on the worldwide estate. If the domicile is abroad, Switzerland may levy tax only on Swiss-situated assets, notably Swiss real estate or business assets.

Regarding wills, a person domiciled in Switzerland may dispose of their worldwide estate by will under Swiss law, barring immovable property abroad where the local “lex rei sitae” applies. Foreign residents in Switzerland may elect their national law for succession, provided that certain conditions are met.

For inheritance claims, Swiss courts generally have jurisdiction if the deceased was domiciled in Switzerland at death. In some specific cases, Swiss courts of the place of origin of the deceased, as well as Swiss courts at the location of assets, can have jurisdiction.

For divorce claims, Swiss courts generally have jurisdiction if at least one spouse’s domicile is in Switzerland. In some specific cases, Swiss courts of the place of origin of either spouse, as well as Swiss courts of the place of celebration of marriage can have jurisdiction.

Swiss tax law sets out two grounds for unlimited subjection to income tax (tax residency). The first one is the tax domicile of the taxpayer. In this regard, an individual is considered domiciled in Switzerland for tax purposes if they live there with the intention of settling permanently. This requires the fulfilment of two conditions:

• an objective condition: factual physical presence in Switzerland; and
• a subjective condition: the intention to settle permanently, meaning that the individual’s centre of vital interests is located in Switzerland.

The objective condition is quite easily met; however, the subjective condition requires various factors to be taken into account, such as family, social life and professional activities. Family relationships generally prevail over other connecting factors for children and married individuals. By contrast, for single or unmarried individuals, professional activities typically take precedence over other factors.

The second basis for unlimited subjection to income tax is a stay in Switzerland. A taxpayer is deemed as a tax resident if they reside in Switzerland for a continuous period of 90 days without gainful activity or for a continuous period of 30 days with a gainful activity. The requirement of continuity is generally not fulfilled if the taxpayer leaves Switzerland frequently during the relevant period, even for short periods of only a few days.

Swiss intestate succession is structured according to a parental system divided into three groups:

• First group: The descendants inherit the entire estate in equal parts, subject to the spouse’s rights.
• Second group: Where the deceased is not survived by any issue, the estate passes to the parental line, subject to the spouse’s rights. The father and mother each inherit one half of the estate. A predeceased parent is replaced by their issue.
• Third group: Where the deceased is survived by neither spouse, issue nor heirs in the parental line, the estate passes to the line of the grandparents. Where the grandparents of the paternal and maternal lines survive the deceased, they inherit in equal parts on both sides. A predeceased grandparent is replaced by their issue.

As for the surviving spouses, they receive:

• one-half of the estate, where they are obliged to share with the deceased’s issue;
• three-quarters of the estate, where they are obliged to share with heirs in the parental line; or
• the entire estate, where no heirs exist in the parental line either.

Where the deceased leaves no heirs, their estate passes to the canton in which they were last resident or to the commune designated by the law of that canton.

In Switzerland, intestacy is therefore predictable but sometimes unsuitable for modern families, particularly those involving unmarried partners and stepchildren, which are not heirs under Swiss law (see 11. Planning for Non-Traditional Families).

Forced heirship exists under Swiss law but has undergone significant recent changes. Since 1 January 2023, the disposable portion of the deceased’s estate has been increased to the detriment of forced heirs. In particular, parents, who previously qualified as forced heirs, no longer benefit from such protection.

Accordingly, the current legal framework is the following:

• The surviving spouse is a forced heir, entitled to one-half of their statutory share (see 3.1 Intestate Succession).
• The descendants are forced heirs, also entitled to one-half of their statutory share (see 3.1 Intestate Succession).

In other words, the testator now enjoys full testamentary freedom over one-half of their estate, whereas the other half of their estate must necessarily pass to the forced heirs.

During their lifetime, the testator is free to dispose of their assets and to make gifts either to third parties or heirs, whether or not such gifts are to be brought into account in the estate. However, in certain circumstances (eg, certain advances against a person’s share of an inheritance, to the extent these are not subject to hotchpot, assets alienated by the deceased with the obvious intention of circumventing the limitations on their testamentary freedom, or gifts made in the five years prior to their death, with the exception of customary occasional gifts), these gifts are taken into consideration when calculating the hereditary estate in order to ensure compliance with forced heirship. In the event of an infringement of those compulsory shares, the forced heirs may bring an abatement action against the recipients of gifts subject to reduction.

Forced heirship protection in Switzerland is therefore robust and difficult to circumvent; however, these rights may be waived under strict conditions. Indeed, a testator may conclude an inheritance renunciation contract with an heir with or without valuable consideration. The renouncing party and, unless provided otherwise, the issue of the renouncing party are then not deemed to be heirs of the estate. To be valid, such inheritance renunciation contract must meet the following requirements:

• The parties must be capable of judgement.
• The parties must have reached the age of 18.
• The contract must be concluded by public deed, ie, made in the presence of two witnesses by a public official, notary public or other person authorised under cantonal law to conduct such business.

Thus, with the agreement of the compulsory heirs, estate planning may follow rules that are completely different from those of intestacy.

The fate of marital property in succession planning depends on the applicable regime. Indeed, Swiss marital property law provides three different regimes:

• The ordinary regime of participation in acquired property: In the absence of any choice of law by the spouses or provisions contained in a marriage contract, the ordinary regime of participation in acquired property automatically applies. According to this regime, the spouses own two kinds of assets. On the one hand, each spouse individually owns their individual property, which includes personal effects used exclusively by that spouse, assets belonging to that spouse at the beginning of the marital property regime or acquired later at no cost by inheritance or otherwise, and claims for satisfaction and acquisitions that replace individual property. On the other hand, the spouses jointly own the acquired property, which includes the proceeds from the spouses’ employment, the benefits received from staff welfare schemes, social security and social welfare institutions, the compensation for inability to work, the income derived from the spouses’ own property and the property acquired to replace acquired property.
• The community of property regime: Under the regime of community of property, all assets are presumed to belong to the community (including earned, gifted or inherited assets), with the exception of personal belongings. Each spouse owns all the community assets jointly with the other spouse and participates in half of the community upon dissolution of the regime (death or divorce). Individual property may, however, be created by prenuptial/postnuptial agreement, by provisions made by third parties or by law. The adoption of the regime of community of property requires the signing of a prenuptial/postnuptial agreement before a public notary in the form of a public deed.
• The separation of property regime: Under the regime of separation of property, each spouse administers their own assets and individually enjoys the related benefits, meaning that there is no joint property. More precisely, there is no acquired property or community that gives rise to a monetary claim upon dissolution of the regime (death or divorce). Such a regime may either be agreed upon in a prenuptial/postnuptial agreement signed before a public notary in the form of a public deed or be ordered by the judge, in particular when the spouses separate but do not divorce.

The marital property regime is dissolved upon the death of a spouse in order to determine the surviving spouse’s share before applying succession rules. As this sequencing can substantially affect the estate’s value, in some cases, reorganisation of marital property can increase or decrease the spouse’s entitlement.

During life, the administration and the transfer of marital property also depends on the applicable regime and on the qualification of the asset. In the ordinary regime, each spouse administers and enjoys the benefits of their individual property and has power of disposal over it. However, if an asset is in the co-ownership of both spouses, neither spouse may dispose of their share in it without the other’s consent, unless otherwise agreed. In the community of property regime, each spouse may, in the limits of everyday housekeeping, incur commitments on behalf of the marital union and dispose of common property. Outside the limits of everyday housekeeping, the spouses may incur commitments on behalf of the common property and dispose thereof only jointly or individually with the other’s consent. Finally, in the separation of property regime, each spouse may in general administer and enjoy the benefits of their own property and has power of disposal over it.

Just as forced heirs are entitled to bring an abatement action against inter vivos gifts infringing their compulsory shares (see 3.2 Forced Heirship), the surviving spouse, upon liquidation of the marital property regime, may request the reconstitution of assets that were disposed of in breach of the rules governing the administration of the marital property or otherwise in violation of the applicable marital property provisions.

Both prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are permitted and recognised in Switzerland. Such agreements must be executed in the form of a public deed before a notary, either prior to the celebration of the marriage or after the marriage, in which case they may have retroactive effect as from the date of the marriage. It is also possible to conclude a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement before taking up residence in Switzerland.

Certain matters, however, cannot be validly predetermined by marital agreement. In particular, the grounds or preconditions for divorce cannot be fixed in advance, and provisions relating to post-divorce maintenance or arrangements concerning children are not binding without court approval in the course of divorce proceedings.

Lifetime transfers are generally deemed as income or gifts under Swiss tax law. Income is governed by general rules on direct taxes, while gifts are exempt from direct taxes.

Hence, no gift tax is levied at the federal level in Switzerland; gift tax exists only at the cantonal and municipal levels. Although rules vary from one canton to another, most cantons levy gift tax if the donor is a resident of the relevant canton or if the gift is real estate located in the relevant canton. However, the tax is due from the donee. The applicable rate generally varies depending on the relationship between the donor and the donee. Some cantons exempt gifts made between spouses or to direct heirs.

Private capital gains realised on privately held movable assets are generally tax-exempt in Switzerland at the federal, cantonal and communal levels. However, capital gains arising from professional trading activities or self-employment are subject to income tax. In addition, gains derived from the transfer of Swiss real estate are typically subject to a specific real estate capital gains tax at the cantonal level.

Some considerations may prove crucial on the tax outcomes of lifetime transfers. Notably, gift tax is levied at the cantonal and municipal levels; consequently, the domicile has a huge impact on tax outcomes, as the rate may double from one municipality to another. Moreover, the timing of gifts may be a crucial consideration, as certain cantons provide for annual tax-exempt allowances in respect of gifts.

Transfers of property upon death are subject to cantonal inheritance tax, generally assessed on the market value of the assets at the date of death.

Unrealised gains may arise in respect of business assets. However, death does not trigger taxation of unrealised gains. Instead, under the principle of tax succession, the heirs assume the deceased’s tax position and the assets are transferred at their existing book values for income tax purposes. The precise rules depend on the relevant cantonal legislation. This may lead to unexpected tax consequences for heirs, particularly where an asset has been used for private purposes by several generations but remains subject to taxation on the latent capital gain upon its eventual sale.

Specific rules are of course dependent on cantonal law. Nevertheless, common planning considerations are the place of residence, given that the tax rate varies from municipality to municipality. Moreover, some cantons provide broader exemptions based on the relationship with the deceased. Finally, the inheritance tax burden may be reduced by inter vivos gifts, subject to the conditions of cantonal law.

Under Swiss law, inter vivos estate-planning techniques primarily rely on civil-law instruments, including gifts, either as outright transfers or structured as advances on inheritance, loans or the creation of usufruct rights.

As lifetime transfers made by the testator, gifts may be structured so as not to be brought into account in the estate, for example in order to favour a particular heir. On the contrary, gifts may take the form of advance payments of inheritance, in which case their value must be taken into consideration when calculating the estate to be divided, thereby preserving equality among the heirs.

It is also common to transfer real estate during lifetime while reserving a usufruct in favour of the transferor, allowing the early transmission of assets while retaining the right to occupy or use the property.

Loans may likewise be granted to heirs or to third parties as part of succession planning.

Family entities, such as holding companies or family partnerships, enable orderly succession and provide a structured framework for managing family wealth. These vehicles allow for a gradual transfer of control and assets, preserve operational continuity and can facilitate the implementation of tax or governance arrangements tailored to complex family situations.

Foundations may serve a planning function in certain circumstances, as well as trusts, although such instruments do not exist under Swiss domestic law (see 9. Trusts, Foundations and Related Entities).

Since inheritance tax is levied at the cantonal level in Switzerland, the tax consequences of available planning mechanisms vary from one canton to another.

As previously discussed regarding the taxation of gifts (see 5.1 Lifetime Transfers), under certain conditions a gift may be recharacterised as an advance on inheritance and consequently be subject to inheritance tax rather than gift tax. Estate planning must therefore carefully take this risk into account.

The creation of a usufruct also entails tax implications. As a general rule, the usufructuary must declare the usufruct as part of their taxable wealth and is subject to income tax on the deemed rental value of the asset.

With respect to loans, it is essential to comply with the conditions set by the tax authorities in order for the loan to qualify as arm’s length. Failing this, the transaction may be requalified as a hidden gift and trigger gift tax consequences.

Business succession planning is addressed below (see 8. Family Business Succession Planning).

Finally, foundations and trusts are primarily used in the context of international tax planning. It is important to note that trusts and foundations are not necessarily treated identically under civil law and tax law. For example, although the settlor of a discretionary trust may be considered to have relinquished ownership from a civil-law perspective, tax authorities may still attribute the assets to the settlor for tax purposes.

When addressing the succession of digital assets under Swiss law, a distinction must be drawn between digital assets that have patrimonial value and those that do not.

Digital assets with patrimonial value include cryptocurrency holdings, online accounts (eg, Wise or PayPal accounts), and any other assets with an ascertainable financial value. In principle, such assets pass automatically to the heirs, who become their owners immediately upon the death of the deceased. The heirs’ right to obtain information regarding such assets nevertheless remains difficult to implement. That said, it is presently the subject of a legislative reform project aimed at facilitating heirs’ access to digital assets with patrimonial values. Currently, issues relating to access to these assets may be highly complex, making advance planning for their transfer essential (see 7.2 Planning Considerations).

Digital assets without patrimonial value include, in particular, email accounts, electronic messaging accounts and social media profiles. The legal position under Swiss law in respect of these assets is significantly more complex and requires a more detailed analysis.

Digital assets without patrimonial value, which in certain circumstances may also be characterised as personal data, are protected during a person’s lifetime by several legal provisions. In particular, Article 13 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code safeguard personality rights, including the protection of private life and personal data. In addition, the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection grants data subjects specific rights, notably the right to obtain information regarding the processing of their data and, where applicable, to request its rectification or deletion.

However, personality rights generally cease upon death. Moreover, Swiss succession law provides that only transferable patrimonial rights pass to the heirs, to the exclusion of rights that are inseparably linked to the deceased’s personality. As a result, strictly personal data and other non-transferable personality-related rights do not, in principle, form part of the estate and are therefore not transmitted to the heirs.

This creates a practical and legal tension: although the data may continue to exist, heirs will often lack both a substantive right to their protection and a legal basis to obtain information and access to them.

The transmission of digital assets may give rise to numerous difficulties in terms of ownership, rights to information and practical possibilities of access. Therefore, it is important for a testator to plan their estate on this subject, even though the options are mainly pragmatic, including, in particular:

• Recording in a secure manner all access credentials to online accounts and cryptocurrency wallets so that heirs are able to access and manage them upon death. Failing such arrangements, there is a real risk that the relevant information will be lost permanently and that transmission of the assets will become extremely complex, if not impossible.
• Making use of platform-specific legacy settings, whereby certain service providers allow users to determine the post-mortem fate of their accounts (eg, the possibility for a Facebook account to be converted into a memorial account, or the possibility given by certain providers to name a third party to access and delete data after death).
• Providing trusted heirs or third parties with instructions and powers enabling them to delete, preserve or otherwise manage digital accounts in accordance with the testator’s wishes.
• Relying on specialised service providers that securely store access credentials to digital assets and, upon death, implement the measures predetermined by the account holder.

In light of the above, even though estate planning tools for digital assets are far from perfect, it is essential to use them in order to achieve a situation that is as satisfactory as possible for both the deceased and their heirs.

See 8.2 Legal and Tax Considerations.

Given that inheritance tax is governed by cantonal law, succession strategies require a case-by-case analysis. Common succession planning strategies consist of making use of cantonal gift tax rules to gradually transfer shares in a family business in a tax-efficient manner, thereby avoiding inheritance tax liability.

Cantonal law also frequently provides incentives for the transfer of family businesses upon death, typically allowing a business to be maintained at its commercial (book) value in order to defer taxation of unrealised capital gains.

A crucial consideration for business succession planning is the valuation of the assets. It may prove particularly relevant and challenging for private equity. In such a case, the value of the shares must be assessed pursuant to the rules set forth by the tax administration. A proper valuation of assets is essential for effective succession planning, in particular to avoid inadvertently losing the benefit of available exemptions as a result of discrepancies between the taxpayer’s valuation and that adopted by the tax authorities.

The valuation of the assets is also a fundamental issue where a family business is passed on to only one or certain forced heirs. It is essential to ensure compliance with compulsory share entitlements and, accordingly, the availability of sufficient assets to compensate those heirs who do not benefit from the transfer of the family business (cf 3. Intestacy and Forced Heirship Laws).

Swiss substantive law does not provide for a domestic trust regime. Switzerland is, however, a contracting state to the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition.

Under Swiss private international law, the law governing a trust is determined in accordance with the Convention. Swiss courts and authorities are therefore required to recognise trusts validly constituted under the designated foreign law, provided that the minimum requirements laid down by the Convention are satisfied. Where a trust is valid under the applicable law and the relevant assets have been properly transferred into the trust in compliance with the legal rules of the jurisdictions concerned, it will in principle be recognised in Switzerland.

However, the transfer of assets into a trust may nevertheless infringe the rules on forced heirship (cf 3.2 Forced Heirship). In such circumstances, the disposition may be subject to claw-back or abatement actions, allowing protected heirs to recover the portion necessary to restore their compulsory entitlements.

Swiss law contains specific provisions governing foundations, including so-called family foundations established for the benefit of members of the founder’s family.

The permissible purposes of a Swiss family foundation are interpreted restrictively. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, the statutory list of purposes is exhaustive and limited to education, welfare and health. Support for family members must therefore remain ancillary and situation-dependent, typically relating to youth, the establishment of an independent livelihood or circumstances of hardship. Swiss law does not allow family members to benefit unconditionally from foundation assets in order to finance their ordinary living expenses or generally enhance their economic position. Foundations pursuing broader or maintenance-type purposes are consequently regarded as unlawful and void.

By contrast, under Swiss private international law, foreign private foundations are recognised in Switzerland provided that they comply with the publicity or registration requirements of the governing foreign law or, in the absence of such requirements, are validly organised under that law. This recognition may apply even where the foreign foundation is permitted to cover, in whole or in part, the beneficiaries’ living expenses.

In a public deliberation held in February 2026, the Federal Supreme Court examined whether a foreign resident could transfer a second home to a American trust in favour of their family members without prior authorisation under the Federal Act on the Acquisition of Immovable Property in Switzerland by Foreign Non-Residents.

The facts were as follows: a British father who owned a holiday home in Switzerland established a family trust governed by New York law in 2020 together with his wife and two sons, all of whom acted both as trustees and as beneficiaries. In 2022, the Bern Administrative Court held that transferring the property to the trust did not require authorisation under the Federal Act on the Acquisition of Immovable Property in Switzerland by Foreign Non-Residents.

Following an appeal by the Federal Office of Justice, the Federal Supreme Court overturned that decision in its public deliberation of 5 February 2026. The Court reiterated that the Federal Act on the Acquisition of Immovable Property in Switzerland by Foreign Non-Residents, as a matter of principle, subjects the acquisition of immovable property by persons abroad to an authorisation requirement and establishes a deliberately broad regime with only limited statutory exceptions, in particular for transfers to a spouse or to relatives in the direct line. In this context, the Court held that, as a trust does not fall within any of these exceptions, a transfer without authorisation is not permissible. Moreover, although cantonal law may allow foreign natural persons to acquire holiday homes under certain conditions, a trust constitutes a distinct legal structure, meaning that no legislative gap can be relied upon.

This decision confirms that, for persons abroad owning real estate in Switzerland, the use of trusts may constitute a viable estate-planning mechanism, but is one that generally requires prior authorisation under the Federal Act on the Acquisition of Immovable Property in Switzerland by Foreign Non-Residents. By contrast, direct transfers to a spouse or to ascendants or descendants may fall within the statutory exceptions and therefore not require such authorisation.

In Switzerland, corporate and professional fiduciaries serving as trustees are generally subject to licensing requirements. The licence is granted by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and is subject to the fulfilment of cumulative conditions.

In particular, professional fiduciaries must be registered in the Swiss Commercial Register and comply with specific organisational, governance and financial requirements, including minimum equity capital thresholds. Moreover, professional fiduciaries are required to affiliate with a supervisory organisation that is itself licensed and overseen by FINMA.

Accordingly, professional fiduciaries are subject not only to private law liability but also to public law supervision and regulatory oversight.

Switzerland allows for the establishment of Private Trust Companies (PTCs). However, PTCs are in principle also subject to licensing by FINMA, although an exemption from prudential supervision may be available under certain conditions. In addition, PTCs must affiliate with a self-regulatory organisation within the meaning of the Swiss Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Under Swiss tax law, the residence of the trustees is generally not decisive for the taxation of a trust. Instead, Swiss tax practice typically attributes the trust assets and income to either the settlor or the beneficiaries, depending on the structure of the trust (eg, revocable vs irrevocable, discretionary vs fixed interest).

However, the residence of the trustees may create a tax nexus in certain circumstances, particularly where the trust assets are held through holding or operating companies effectively managed by Swiss-resident trustees. In such cases, the place of effective management could be considered to be in Switzerland, potentially triggering Swiss corporate tax and withholding tax liability.

Nonetheless, only the underlying company could qualify as a Swiss tax resident and not the trust.

Under Swiss inheritance law, the situation of so-called non-traditional families depends largely on the family structure in question. Some enjoy protection equivalent to that of traditional families, while others have no special protection.

With regard to same-sex couples, same-sex marriage is recognised in Switzerland and has the same effects as heterosexual marriage. This equality extends in particular to inheritance rules and the resulting tax consequences. There is, therefore, no difference of treatment of same-sex couples.

Children born out of wedlock benefit from the same legal status and inheritance rights as children born within marriage, provided that paternity has been legally recognised by the father, which is not automatic outside marriage.

Adopted children also enjoy full protection equivalent to that of biological children, whether they are adopted by same-sex or heterosexual couples.

On the other hand, unmarried partners do not enjoy any legal inheritance protection. In particular, they are not each other’s heirs in the event of intestacy and must therefore make specific inheritance plans if they wish to pass on assets to each other. This lack of status can also have significant tax consequences: several cantons provide for total exemption or very low taxation for married couples, while no comparable measures exist for unmarried couples.

The situation of surrogate children is also complex, as surrogacy is not authorised in Switzerland. However, some Swiss couples resort to surrogacy abroad. In most cases, only one of the parents (who has biological or legal connection to the child according to Swiss law) is recognised as the legal parent under Swiss law at birth. The other “parent” does not immediately benefit from legal recognition but may adopt their spouse’s child at certain conditions. In particular, the adopting parent must have raised and cared for the child for at least one year. This interim period is not legally protected from a succession perspective, meaning that the child does not yet benefit from the statutory inheritance rights attaching to a legally recognised parent–child relationship. Once the adoption has been completed, however, the ordinary legal regime applies in full, and the child is treated in the same manner as a biological child for succession purposes.

In situations involving remarriage, the rules of intestacy may also give rise to difficulties. Where a person dies leaving children from a first marriage and a new spouse, the estate will be divided between the children and the surviving spouse. Upon the subsequent death of that surviving spouse, however, the assets inherited from the first deceased will pass to the surviving spouse’s own legal heirs. This outcome may prove problematic and therefore calls for appropriate estate planning in order to avoid such a transfer of wealth outside the original family line. In particular, it is possible to arrange matters by will or contract so that, upon the death of the surviving spouse, the assets ultimately revert to the deceased’s own children. However, provided that they have not validly waived this right, the surviving spouse may dispose of their reserved portion of the estate as they wish.

Conflicts frequently arise in cross-border family situations where personal status, parentage or marital relationships are recognised differently across jurisdictions. This is particularly relevant for unmarried partners, same-sex couples whose status may not be uniformly acknowledged abroad, and children born through assisted reproduction or surrogacy arrangements concluded outside Switzerland.

Swiss private international law provides several mechanisms to mitigate such conflicts. Succession is generally governed by the law of the deceased’s last domicile, subject to a permitted choice of the law of nationality. Foreign judgments and civil status determinations (such as divorces, adoptions or parentage decisions) are in principle recognised, provided that they do not contravene Swiss public policy. Although this framework offers a degree of predictability, practical difficulties still arise sometimes where multiple jurisdictions assert competing claims or where recognition procedures are required.

In any case, from a planning perspective, these risks underscore the importance of co-ordinated cross-border structuring.

Tax law is necessarily a component of good-quality succession planning, and it proves even more relevant at an international level given the risk of double taxation. In the worst case, the estate might end up being taxed at a rate superior to 100%.

Under domestic law, double taxation relief is limited. Mostly, cantons exempt foreign real estate from inheritance tax. From a planning perspective, an important feature is that most cantons levy inheritance tax based on the domicile of the deceased, rather than on the domiciles of the heirs. This may result in situations of double non-taxation where the deceased’s country of residence taxes inheritances based on the heirs’ domiciles.

However, at an international level, the most crucial rules are found in double taxation conventions (DTCs). Switzerland possesses a broad network of DTCs. Usually, two treaties are concluded with a country, one for income tax purposes and one for inheritance matters. Both are relevant for succession planning given that gifts are mostly governed by income tax DTCs. Switzerland generally opts for the exemption method (as opposed to the credit method) in its DTCs.

Specific considerations are required concerning France, with which Switzerland does not currently have an inheritance tax treaty, potentially leading to significant double taxation in cross-border situations due to the absence of treaty relief.