5 · What «rechtsgültig» means operationally — the identity layer

The previous chapter read the norm. This one reads what becomes of it once a human being is sitting in front of a screen.

The bottleneck in Zürich is not the contract swissdec still has to write, and it is not the file format. It is the identity layer. It can be traced across five links of a chain made entirely of the canton's own documents, and at the end of that chain sits a tick box only a person can click.

Link 1 — the norm says what is legally valid. § 1 Abs. 2 of the Verordnung über die elektronische Einreichung der Steuererklärung (LS 631.121, ordinance of 18 October 2011, version in force since 01.07.2025):

«Mit diesen Applikationen kann die Steuererklärung gemäss den Vorgaben dieser Verordnung rechtsgültig elektronisch eingereicht werden.» (with these applications the tax return can be filed electronically with legal effect, in line with the requirements of this ordinance)

The word «rechtsgültig» (legally valid) appears exactly once in the 995 words of the ordinance — counted with word boundaries over the consolidated text, 04.08.2026 — and it appears in this sentence, which ties it to «diese Applikationen» (these applications).

Link 2 — the norm does not say who may use the application. § 5 LS 631.121, version of 13.05.2025:

«Für den Zugang zur Applikation muss sich die steuerpflichtige Person gemäss den auf der Webseite des kantonalen Steueramtes veröffentlichten Vorgaben authentifizieren.» (to access the application, the taxable person must authenticate in line with the requirements published on the website of the cantonal Steueramt)

This is where the access condition is settled. The norm delegates the access condition to a website. § 4 Abs. 2 says the same thing again: «Das kantonale Steueramt veröffentlicht die Voraussetzungen für den Zugang zu den Applikationen auf seiner Webseite.» (the cantonal Steueramt publishes the conditions of access to the applications on its website). Anyone who wants to know who can file a Zürich tax return with legal effect will not find the answer in the statute book. They find it in running text on zh.ch.

Link 3 — the identity layer is on that website. zh.ch, migration guide for ZHcorporateTax:

«Die Online-Steuererklärung für Unternehmen des Kantons Zürich verwendet zur Anmeldung AGOV, den Authentifizierungsdienst der Schweizer Behörden. Ein AGOV-Konto repräsentiert immer eine natürliche Person, die entweder für sich selbst oder im Auftrag handelt.» (the canton of Zürich's online tax return for companies uses AGOV, the authentication service of the Swiss authorities, to sign in. An AGOV account always represents a natural person, acting either for themselves or on someone's behalf)

Link 4 — filing has two constituent elements, and both presuppose the application. § 8 Abs. 1 LS 631.121:

«Die Steuererklärung gilt als elektronisch eingereicht, wenn die steuerpflichtige Person die auf der Applikation erfasste Steuererklärung elektronisch an den Server übermittelt und dabei elektronisch bestätigt hat, dass die Steuererklärung wahrheitsgemäss und vollständig ausgefüllt ist.» (the tax return counts as filed electronically when the taxable person transmits the return captured in the application electronically to the server and, in doing so, confirms electronically that the return has been completed truthfully and in full)

The bolt is not § 1, it is this sentence. «Auf der Applikation erfasst» (captured in the application) is a constituent element. A file created somewhere else does not meet it, however valid its schema.

Link 5 — and this is what the confirmation actually looks like. Help-centre article «Steuererklärung einreichen» (filing the tax return), created 30.05.2025, edited 17.09.2025:

«Durch Anklicken der Checkbox bestätigen Sie die vollständige und wahrheitsgemässe Deklaration. Erst nach Anklicken dieser Checkbox wird die Schaltfläche für die Übermittlung aktiv, und die Steuererklärung kann eingereicht werden.» (by clicking the checkbox you confirm that the declaration is complete and truthful. Only after that click does the submit button become active and the return can be filed)

That completes the evidence for the sentence: «Rechtsgültig» in Zürich means, operationally, that a natural person with an AGOV account ticks a box inside the cantonal application. A machine cannot hold an AGOV account. That is not a technical limit; it is a definition, and it stands not in the law but on a website the law refers to.

The route into the paperless channel runs through a letter

The slides from the online information session of 25.08.2025 contain the sequence of the live demo. The first three steps, verbatim:

«1. Login über AGOV (mit physischem Zugangscode via Schreiben) 2. Jahresrechnung hochladen via Webbrowser 3. Abfüllen Steuererklärung (Reingewinn, Kapital, etc.)» (1. log in via AGOV, with a physical access code sent by letter 2. upload the Jahresrechnung via web browser 3. fill in the tax return — net profit, capital, etc.)

Step 2 is a PDF upload. Step 3 is typing. And step 1 is postal mail. zh.ch gives the reason explicitly: «Aus Datenschutzgründen muss der Zugangscode per Post verschickt werden.» (for data-protection reasons the access code has to be sent by post). The Q&A of 08.09.2025 gives the operating figures: B-Post, «wobei die Post eine Zustellung innert 2-6 Tagen garantierte» (with the postal service guaranteeing delivery within 2-6 days).

The migration page lists the prerequisites: the access code, the register number, «Ihr Smartphone» (your smartphone) — and the form is completed «auf Ihrem PC oder Laptop» (on your PC or laptop). Access code, register number, smartphone and PC — and the access code arrives by B-Post, for the data-protection reason the canton names. For a Treuhand with thirty mandates that is thirty letters, each with a transit time that is guaranteed but not controlled.

Two statements the canton documents itself

Slide 2 from 25.08.2025 names, in three words, a feature of the new solution:

«Digitale Einreichung ohne Unterschrift» (digital filing without a signature)

Set against it, the help-centre article «Vertreter, Vollmacht, Formular» (representative, power of attorney, form):

«Für die Änderung oder erstmalige Bestellung eines Generalvertreters über ZHcorporateTax muss das ausgefüllte und rechtsgültig unterzeichnete Formular Vertretungsvollmacht für juristische Personen elektronisch als Beilage zur Steuererklärung eingereicht werden. … Falls ja, ist eine handschriftlich unterzeichnete Vollmacht für den neuen Vertreter oder ein Widerruf hochzuladen.» (to change or first appoint a Generalvertreter via ZHcorporateTax, the completed and legally signed form Vertretungsvollmacht für juristische Personen must be filed electronically as an attachment to the tax return. … If so, a handwritten signed power of attorney for the new representative, or a revocation, must be uploaded)

Both sentences come from the same canton, from the same rollout, weeks apart. They do not contradict each other logically — the return needs no signature, the power of attorney does. But operationally it means this: appointing the representative calls for a handwritten signature in a channel that slide 2 describes as «Digitale Einreichung ohne Unterschrift». Anyone entering this channel as a representative for the first time signs by hand, scans and uploads. Freedom from signatures begins after that.

Three delegation mechanisms — one of them is in the ordinance

For a Treuhand the question is not how it files, but how its client authorises it to do so. The corpus shows three routes. Only one is codified.

A correction to our earlier account. Elsewhere we wrote that delegation today runs through the client's own access credentials. That is the wording of § 11 Abs. 1 and the case the ordinance knows — but it is not the case a Treuhand with a registered general power of attorney experiences. Where a general power of attorney is registered, the client's access credentials are never handed over; the canton issues the representative a code of their own. The revocation under § 11 Abs. 2 — «indem sie vom kantonalen Steueramt einen neuen Zugangscode verlangt» (by requesting a new access code from the cantonal Steueramt), by post to the registered address — accordingly describes route (a) only. The two routes a Treuhand uses in practice are not governed by the ordinance.

Kollektivunterschrift: the norm calls for a list, the application assumes the rest

§ 8 Abs. 3 LS 631.121 is unambiguous and stands in the plural:

«Juristische Personen führen in der Bestätigung die natürlichen Personen auf, welche die Bestätigung für die juristische Person abgeben.» (legal entities list, in the confirmation, the natural persons who give the confirmation on behalf of the legal entity)

The Q&A of 08.09.2025 answers the question of how two people holding joint signature authority file:

«Es kann immer nur eine Person die Einreichung vornehmen. Ähnlich wie bei verheirateten natürlichen Personen gehen wir davon aus, dass die Zustimmung weiterer unterschriftsberechtigter Personen vorliegt.» (only one person can ever carry out the filing. As with married natural persons, we assume that the consent of any further authorised signatories is in place)

The norm provides for a list. The application admits one sender and assumes the rest. The comparison with jointly assessed spouses is close at hand, but § 8 Abs. 2 governs that case separately and expressly requires the spouses to «die elektronische Bestätigung gemeinsam abgeben» (give the electronic confirmation jointly). For legal entities, Abs. 3 does not say «gemeinsam» (jointly) but «führen auf» (list) — an enumeration in the data set, not an assumption in conversation.

No role model, no visible record of changes

Two answers from the same Q&A of 08.09.2025:

«ZHcorporateTax bietet kein Rollenmodell mit unterschiedlichen Berechtigungen an. Eine Steuererklärung kann geteilt werden, wobei alle Benutzer die gleichen Rechte haben.» (ZHcorporateTax offers no role model with differentiated permissions. A tax return can be shared, and all users then hold the same rights)

«[Frage: Ist ersichtlich, wer eine Änderung an einer Steuererklärung vornimmt?] Diese Informationen sind in der Datenbank teilweise vorhanden, sind aber für die Benutzenden in der Anwendung nicht ersichtlich.» (Question: is it visible who makes a change to a tax return? — this information is partly held in the database, but it is not visible to users inside the application)

For a Treuhand this is the operationally decisive passage in the whole corpus. Sharing a return means sharing all of it: clerk, reviewer and authorised signatory hold the same rights, and who last changed a figure cannot be read off the screen. Four-eyes review cannot be represented inside this application, only alongside it — in the firm's own records. That stands in no Wegleitung; it stands in an answer to a chat question.

The third finding on the same page fits alongside it. § 3 Abs. 1 lit. d of the ordinance requires the cantonal Steueramt to take measures «damit jederzeit nachvollzogen werden kann, welche Personen auf welche Daten zugegriffen haben» (so that it can be traced at any time which persons accessed which data). The Q&A says the information is «teilweise» (partly) held in the database. For the authority, traceability is codified. For the user, it is not visible.

The deadline that stands in no norm

The Q&A of 08.09.2025 contains this exchange:

«Frage: Startet nach Korrektur und erneuter Einreichung innerhalb der 5-tägigen Frist eine neue 5-tägige Frist? Antwort: Ja, nach einer erneuten Einreichung innerhalb der 5-tägigen Frist startet diese neu.» (Question: after a correction and re-filing within the 5-day window, does a new 5-day window start? Answer: yes, after re-filing within the 5-day window it starts again)

The question takes the deadline as known; the answer confirms how it works. It does not appear in LS 631.121. § 8 knows no deadline. § 9 governs correction without any time reference at all: «Nach der elektronischen Übermittlung gemäss § 8 kann die steuerpflichtige Person in der Applikation eine berichtigte Steuererklärung eröffnen, ausfüllen und gemäss § 8 einreichen.» (after electronic transmission under § 8, the taxable person may open, complete and file a corrected tax return in the application under § 8). Full stop.

Where it comes from can be shown. The Dr. Tax helpdesk, last edited 03.07.2026, describes for the canton of Zürich, natural persons: «Freigabe: … automatische Freigabe nach 5 Tagen. Korrekturen: Innerhalb von 5 Tagen» (release: … automatic release after 5 days. Corrections: within 5 days). The deadline comes from the NP channel and has been carried over into the JP application. Once it expires, the return is released to the assessor and correction is over. A deadline that determines the point from which a correction can only travel on paper therefore exists in the software and in one vendor's documentation — not in the norm that defines the channel.

Two voices the canton published itself

Questions at the information session were submitted by chat; the canton published them anonymised on 08.09.2025, under the express reservation «dass eine Identifizierung der Teilnehmer nicht möglich ist» (that identification of participants is not possible). Two of them sum up what the sections above evidence one by one:

«AGOV > Wir werden wohl auf Papiere bleiben, bis es da eine schlauere Lösung gibt.» (AGOV > we will probably stay on paper until there is a smarter solution)

«Freigaben geht komplett an den Arbeitsprozessen der Treuhandfirmen vorbei. Wieso kein ZHservices, das schon besteht?» (releases go completely past the working processes of Treuhand firms. Why not ZHservices, which already exists?)

The second question is the more precise one. ZHservices is not wishful thinking: the platform stands in § 12 Abs. 1 of the same ordinance as the access route to the Treuhänder register, and in the same Q&A the canton itself names «die bestehende ZHservices-Schnittstelle (analog NP)» (the existing ZHservices interface, as for NP) as a possible route for third-party applications. The questioner is not asking for anything new. They are asking that the channel that already exists be used.

Handing responsibility back

Slide 8 from 25.08.2025 splits support into two categories. Technical questions go to the helpdesk hotline. For everything else:

«Fachliche Fragen oder Probleme: Bei Fragen oder Problemen mit fachlichem Hintergrund bitten wir Sie den bisherigen Weg beizubehalten: Über Ihren Steuerberater, Treuhänder oder Vertreter.» (subject-matter questions or problems: for questions or problems with a professional background we ask you to keep to the existing route: via your tax adviser, Treuhänder or representative)

Taken together, both sentences give the situation this chapter describes. The canton refers professional support back to the Treuhand — and at the same time sets up a channel that a participant at the same session describes as running past those firms' working processes: one login per natural person, an access code by B-Post, no role model, no visible record of changes, one sender where signature authority is joint, and a five-day clock that stands in no norm.

None of this is a technical problem. Every single piece is a decision somebody made: the delegation in § 5 to a website, the binding to AGOV, postal despatch on data-protection grounds, the absent role model, the carry-over of the NP deadline. And because they are decisions, they can be taken back — some of them without amending the ordinance: § 13 Abs. 1 allows the cantonal Steueramt to issue «Nutzungsvorschriften für die Steuerpflichtigen und deren Vertreter» (rules of use for taxable persons and their representatives), which is exactly the legal instrument in which Zürich has governed data exchange with the municipalities since 2021. Whether an opening would take that route or call for an amendment to the ordinance is not settled by the documents. That it would have a route is.

A note on the reach of this chapter: everything here rests on documents. We have never imported a file into a cantonal portal — not in Zürich, not anywhere else. What ZHcorporateTax actually accepts on import we do not know; we know what the canton has written about it.

---