| R. CHAMAT | OAKS GROUP
The announced abolition of rental value taxation in Switzerland is often presented as just another tax reform. A technical adjustment, a specialist debate, one less line on a tax return. On the ground, the reality is quite different. This change directly affects how homeowners view their homes, their assets, and the long term.
In practical terms, the end of rental value taxation is never just about an immediate gain or loss. It alters an often long-standing balance, built over years between costs, living comfort, renovation decisions, and expectations of future value. It forces owners to see their property no longer as a fixed place to live, but as an asset that evolves, ages, and requires deliberate, well-considered choices.
This is precisely why 2028 should not be seen as a distant deadline. It is a turning point. And like any structural change, it needs to be prepared for in advance, while room for manoeuvre still exists.
For decades, rental value taxation has been part of the Swiss real estate landscape. It was built into calculations, sometimes accepted without enthusiasm, sometimes used as an optimisation lever. Many homeowners learned to live with it, to the point that it influenced decisions without ever being explicitly questioned.
Its abolition breaks with this logic.
In principle, the intention is simple: no longer taxing a notional income for a home occupied by its owner. In reality, however, this apparent simplification brings far broader consequences. The gradual disappearance of certain offsetting mechanisms—particularly the deductibility of maintenance costs—fundamentally changes how the economics of a property are assessed.
In concrete terms, renovation work will no longer be amortised fiscally in the same way. What was once an acceptable compromise becomes a fully assumed cost. Decisions are no longer softened by a protective tax framework. They become more direct, more visible, and more consequential.
This shift is not neutral. It transfers responsibility to the homeowner. It forces decisions to be made based on real value creation, rather than on accounting balances alone.
In practice, the situations encountered are often similar. Well-located homes, sometimes passed down through several generations, with strong emotional ties. Properties that are maintained, yet where certain renovations have been postponed over time—not through neglect, but because the existing framework allowed decisions to be deferred without immediate consequences.
With the end of rental value taxation, this reasoning loses much of its relevance.
Renovation costs—whether energy-related, technical, or functional—will weigh more directly on the property’s economic value. They can no longer be absorbed indirectly. Every intervention, every delay, every trade-off will leave a more visible mark on the property’s trajectory.
Concretely, an insufficiently modernised home becomes harder to value. An energy-intensive property raises more concerns. A project postponed for too long gradually limits future options. These are not theoretical assumptions, but situations already observable on the market.
These choices directly shape a homeowner’s wealth trajectory, sometimes without full awareness at the moment the decision not to act is made.
The reform acts as a revealing force. It highlights an evolution already visible for several years: the market is becoming more demanding, more transparent, and less forgiving of accumulated compromises.
On the ground, properties that have not been prepared are experiencing a form of silent erosion. Not necessarily a sudden drop in value, but a build-up of weak signals: longer negotiations, higher buyer expectations, unfavourable comparisons with more recently renovated properties—sometimes just a few streets away.
In some cases, valuation gaps become significant. Not because the property is poor, but because it no longer aligns with current expectations. This mismatch widens over time.
Concretely, this means that time no longer smooths out differences. It amplifies them. Each year without a clear decision reduces future room for manoeuvre and increases the constraints of upcoming choices.
We often speak of regulations, energy performance, or technical standards. These terms can sound abstract. In reality, they reflect very simple, almost obvious expectations: living better, consuming more efficiently, anticipating more effectively.
Today, a property is assessed through very concrete questions. Is it comfortable to live in year-round, including during periods of extreme heat or cold? Can it adapt to changing uses, family structures, and remote work? Is it consistent with the expectations of future generations?
In real project execution, these criteria increasingly outweigh purely tax-related considerations. Value shifts toward quality of use, the durability of decisions made, and the property’s ability to evolve without heavy, repeated interventions.
This leads to a different reading of renovation. It is no longer just about meeting regulatory requirements, but about structuring an asset capable of retaining its appeal over time. Renovating becomes a structural wealth decision, not a simple technical adjustment.
The end of rental value taxation imposes a more honest reading of future trade-offs. Keeping, renovating, transforming, selling—each option commits the owner to a distinct trajectory, with financial, patrimonial, and personal implications.
In practice, this means thinking of renovations as genuine investments. Not in terms of immediate returns, but in terms of overall coherence. It requires prioritising, accepting that not everything can be done at once, but ensuring that each intervention fits within a broader vision.
This choice is not always comfortable. It involves resources, time, and sometimes a reassessment of long-standing habits. But it also brings clarity. Decisions are taken for what they are, without relying on external mechanisms that are set to disappear.
In real terms, the most serene homeowners are often those who have embraced this posture: that of decision-makers. They do not wait for constraints to be imposed. They integrate the framework and act accordingly. This approach does not promise immediate gains. It offers something more durable: control.
In the long term, the abolition of rental value taxation forms part of a broader transformation of the Swiss real estate market. A market less dependent on tax mechanisms and more attentive to the intrinsic quality of properties.
This evolution does not penalise all homeowners. Above all, it creates a clearer distinction between those who anticipate and those who endure. Prepared, coherent, clearly positioned properties retain their attractiveness. Others become more exposed to adjustments—sometimes gradual, sometimes abrupt.
This dynamic gradually redefines value criteria. It makes the market more transparent, but also more demanding. In the long run, it favours decisions taken early, within a logic of responsibility rather than reaction.
The end of rental value taxation is neither an announced catastrophe nor an automatic promise. It is a change of framework. And like any structural change, it calls for a lucid period of adaptation.
Preparing for 2028 today means accepting to ask the right questions while there is still time to answer them calmly. It means turning a potentially imposed reform into a controlled decision. It means restoring meaning to wealth-related trade-offs by anchoring them in reality rather than in transitional mechanisms.
In an evolving market, value does not disappear. It is built—often upstream, and always with discernment.
