J'ai fait appel à Maître Uzan dans le cadre d'une procédure fiscale longue et techniquement complexe. Analyse rigoureuse du dossier, réponses précises dans des délais parfois très courts, et surtout une vraie capacité à maintenir un dialogue constructif avec l'administration plutôt qu'à durcir inutilement les positions.
Il a pris le temps de m'expliquer chaque étape et les options possibles, sans jargon et sans promesses excessives. Le dossier s'est conclu par une issue négociée.
Un accompagnement sérieux, du premier échange jusqu'au suivi complet de l'exécution. Je recommande sans réserve.
Tax Litigation
By Marc Uzan, French tax lawyer in Paris
Challenging a Tax Reassessment: Claim and Court
Tax lawyer at the Paris Bar since 2008 – exclusive tax law practice, including tax litigation before the courts
Summary
- Mandatory prior claim: it is in principle filed by 31 December of the 2nd year following the year in which the tax was put into collection (article R*196-1 of the French Tax Procedure Code, LPF), other time limits possibly applying depending on the case.
- Silence of the tax authorities = implicit rejection: in principle, after 6 months, the matter may be brought before the administrative court, with no time limit as long as no express decision has been notified.
- Possible penalties: surcharges of 10%, 40% or 80% + interest of 0.20% per month (French General Tax Code (CGI), articles 1729 and 1727).
- Tax lawyer: claim strategy, stay of payment (LPF L.277), representation before the tax court.
Why is a prior claim essential before any legal action against a tax reassessment?
- It is a formal condition of admissibility: Without first filing a written and reasoned claim with the tax authorities, the administrative court will in principle reject your appeal as inadmissible. This step is therefore in principle unavoidable.
- The legal deadline is strictly regulated: The claim must in principle be filed no later than December 31 of the second year following the year of the notice of collection, other time limits possibly applying depending on the case. After that, the claim is in principle inadmissible, even in the event of a manifest error by the tax authorities.
- The content of the claim is regulated: it in principle identifies the tax being disputed, briefly sets out the arguments and the relief sought, is signed and is accompanied by the tax assessment notice or notice of collection (article R*197-3 of the LPF), together with the relevant documents.
- Stay of payment: where the taxpayer expressly requests it in the claim, they may in principle defer payment of the disputed part of the tax and penalties (article L.277 of the LPF); guarantees may be required above a certain amount.
What are the 9 stages of a tax dispute and their time limits?
- Receipt of the tax assessment notice or notice of collection (AMR): this document in principle starts the time limit for filing a claim; it states the amount and nature of the tax and the date on which it falls due.
- Filing of the formal claim: within the ordinary time limit set by article R*196-1 of the LPF, i.e. in principle by 31 December of the 2nd year following the year in which the tax was put into collection, other time limits possibly applying depending on the case.
- Silence or rejection within 6 months: The tax authorities have 6 months to respond (or 3 additional months if they inform you). After this period, silence amounts to implicit rejection.
- Request for a stay of payment: the taxpayer may expressly request the stay in the claim, with guarantees where required, in order to suspend collection of the disputed amounts.
- Referral to the administrative court within 2 months: after an express rejection, the taxpayer in principle has 2 months (no time limit runs in the case of an implicit rejection) to bring the matter before the competent court by written application.
- Hearing and judgment: The administrative judge gives a decision following a public hearing at which you or your lawyer can plead.
- Appeal before the Administrative Court of Appeal: If the judgment is unfavorable, you have 2 months to appeal before the territorially competent Administrative Court of Appeal (CAA).
- Appeal to the Council of State (Conseil d'État) on points of law: As a last resort, you can refer the matter to the Council of State within a further period of 2 months from the CAA's judgment.
- Implementation of the decision: If the taxpayer wins, the tax is discharged. Otherwise, payment becomes due with late-payment interest.
Which surcharges and reassessment periods can you challenge in tax litigation?
| Failure | Surcharge (arts. 1728 and 1729 CGI) | Interest (art. 1727 CGI) | Reassessment period | Possible mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simple late filing | 10% | 0.20%/month | 3 years | Voluntary payment, request for discretionary remission |
| Bad faith | 40% | 0.20%/month | 3 years | Evidence of good faith, lack of intent |
| Fraudulent maneuvers | 80% | 0.20%/month | 3 years (5 years if a criminal tax fraud complaint is filed; 10 years for an undisclosed activity or undeclared foreign accounts) | Challenging the criminal or intentional classification |
How do you request a stay of payment and protect your cash flow during the procedure?
- Express request in the claim: it in principle makes it possible to suspend payment of the disputed tax. Above a certain amount, guarantees may be requested (bank guarantee, mortgage, pledge, etc.).
- A stay that is in principle a right: it can in principle be refused only if the guarantees requested have not been provided. The stay covers only the disputed part of the tax.
- Interest if the reassessment is upheld: if the final decision upholds the reassessment, the tax remains due and interest, calculated at the late-payment interest rate (0.20% per month), may apply for the period of the stay.
What I see in my cases
I go to court fairly rarely, because I favour negotiation: an agreement is generally preferable to conflict. In my practice, around one case in ten goes on to litigation, an order of magnitude that does not prejudge the outcome of a given case. I bring a case before the court when the tax authorities’ position seems to me genuinely questionable and the arguments for challenging it are solid.
The proceedings then last, as a general rule, around two and a half years. In international taxation in particular, the discussion often turns on technical points, such as the application of a tax treaty, on which a solid file can make the difference.
Why entrust your tax litigation to a lawyer from the claim stage?
- Drafting the legal arguments: the tax lawyer looks for the appropriate grounds: procedural defect (LPF L.57), lack of reasoning, limitation, or errors in the tax base or calculation.
- Dealings with the tax authorities: in some situations, it may be relevant to seek an amicable solution before going to court. Article L.247 of the LPF allows, under certain conditions, a discretionary remission or a settlement, in particular on penalties.
- Command of litigation procedure: the lawyer knows the time limits, the formal requirements and what the courts expect. They put the file together, draft the submissions and plead at the hearing.
- Early involvement: involvement from the claim stage makes it possible to raise all available arguments in good time, in particular any procedural defects.
FAQ
Why must I file a claim before bringing my tax dispute before the administrative court?
In principle, because it is an obligation laid down by article R*190-1 of the LPF: the administrative court can examine a case only if a prior claim has been sent to the tax authorities.
This procedure is intended to give the tax authorities a chance to correct or cancel the reassessment before any litigation. Failure to file a claim in principle makes the appeal to the court inadmissible. Even in an emergency or in the event of a manifest error, this formality should in principle be complied with before taking any legal action.
How do you draft a formal tax claim step by step to challenge a notice of collection?
It is advisable to consult a lawyer before taking any step. As a general rule, the claim precisely identifies the tax concerned, the amount contested and the reference of the notice, then clearly sets out the grounds for disagreement (calculation error, limitation, procedural defect…), citing the relevant legal articles and attaching the useful supporting documents (notices, letters, proof of payment…).
The letter is in principle dated and signed; sending it by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt to the competent tax office may be useful to keep proof of it. The more legally precise the claim, the better its chances of success in general.
What happens if the tax authorities do not respond to a claim within 6 months?
In principle, silence on the part of the tax authorities for more than six months amounts to an implicit rejection of the claim. The matter may then be brought before the administrative court; no time limit runs as long as the tax authorities have not notified an express decision (article R*199-1 of the LPF). It may be useful to prepare the appeal without waiting, especially if the case is complex.
Where a stay of payment has been requested, it in principle continues until the administrative court’s decision. If an express rejection is notified later, the two-month time limit for going to court in principle runs from that notification.
Glossary
- AMR: Avis de mise en recouvrement (notice of collection)
- Formal tax claim (réclamation contentieuse): written step required before going to court
- Stay of payment (L.277): suspension of payment in the event of a reasoned challenge
- Reassessment period: the period during which the tax authorities can revisit a tax
Case study: €300,000 income tax reassessment
- 15 April 2023: receipt of the supplementary tax assessment notice
- June 2023: claim filed with proof of error
- December 2023: silence = implicit rejection
- February 2024: appeal to the administrative court
=> In this example: partial tax relief obtained
Further reading
- LPF, article R*196-1: claim deadlines according to the tax concerned
- LPF, article L.57: obligation to state reasons for reassessments
- LPF, article L.277: rules governing the stay of payment
- CGI, article 1729: surcharges according to the taxpayer's conduct
