Letter For Asking Wedding Contribution

The tax penalties and Article 6 ECHR

If an argument frequently used by applicants as part of the tax dispute, it is that non-compliance of tax penalties to the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The analysis of case law reveals that this method has very little chance, if not any, to reach at least the administrative courts.

authors argue therefore that the tax court has no power to vary the tax penalties (section 1729 of the Tax Code providing for an increase of 10%, 40% or 80%, Section 1761 of CGI ...) , the latter simply apply the rate specified by law. The absence of such power allows them to assert that there is no real automatic appeal against the sanctions and that, therefore, Article 6 of the ECHR is not respected.

The jurisprudence is well established. She believes that if legislation providing sanctions do not confer a power modulation of sanctions to the judge, the fact remains that it exercises full control over the facts and the classification adopted by the administration and decides, at the end of this control or maintain the rate which the administration has stopped, or to substitute a lower rate among those prescribed by the law if he considers it justified, or to let the responsibility of the taxpayer as interest on arrears. The Council of State therefore considers that the judge has an unlimited jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the ECHR since the text does not allow the judge to substitute a lower rate than expected by texts.
It is clear that the applications still toiling to make that type of means fail, but at least have the merit of allowing lawyers lack of inspiration to fill many pages.

Biology Funny Status Sayings

The burden of proof in tax law

L has burden of proof is a relatively difficult in tax law in effect if the broad principles can be identified, it should refer to case law for the situations more complex. The following discussion aims to identify these elements and a few special cases.

It should first be noted that the burden of proof is largely dependent on the tax assessment procedure followed:

- Recovery Office or institution an imposing office: proof borne by the taxpayer;

- recovery procedure established by contradiction: the burden of proof rests with the directors except in the following cases where the taxpayer intends to obtain the discharge or reduction of taxation: taxation established by the criteria set forth in the declaration signed or after the content of an act which was subject to the procedure of registration, where the taxpayer has agreed to the relief in the context of reorganization proceedings adversarial, where the taxpayer has failed to meet within the legal notification to a recovery;

- where the tax base is consistent with the taxpayer's return or instruments subject to registration: the taxpayer must prove the excessive taxation;

- in case of seizure of the Committee on Direct Taxes or the Conciliation Commission: administration bears the burden of proof except in case of non submission of accounts, when the accounting has serious irregularities and that the charge is established accordance with the opinion of the commission and in case of automatic taxation;

However, in general, the parties must prove that they are advancing. Such evidence does not generally pose a difficulty, the party intends to establish a fact or law has a tendency to spontaneously provide evidence.

Thus the proof on the taxpayer

- where it intends to avail of a special scheme, he will then prove that it meets the conditions for implementing the plan;

- when it reported in its statement elements of income resulting from tax relief (eg expenses deductible from total income, marital status ...)

- where the taxpayers must keep records that must always be able to justify the entries made in principle and amount;

- where the taxpayer argues that the taxation complained of was made in disregard of a decision formally accepted by the administration;

- finally, he must prove that the formalities incumbent upon ;

Apart from these solutions, the legislature intervened to ask presumptions the burden of the taxpayer who will provide, to evade, the evidence sufficiently conclusive. These assumptions have been implemented in situations where fraud and tax evasion are common:

- presumption of distribution are available to shareholders by way of advances, loans or advances;

- presumption of transfer of profits abroad to Article 57 of CGI (for businesses that are dependent or have control of companies located outside France, profits indirectly transferred to the latter, either by increasing or decreasing the purchase price or sale, or by any other means, are included in the results shown in the accounts) ;

- presumption of section 155 A of the CGI (in some cases the amounts collected by a person resident or established outside France as compensation for services rendered by one or more persons domiciled or established in France);

- presumption of section 238 A of the CGI (for interest, arrears and other products bonds, debentures (...) paid or payable by a natural or legal person resident or established in France with natural or legal persons who are domiciled or established in a foreign state);

- presumption of paragraph 3 of Article 1649 to the CGI (money, securities or assets transferred abroad or from abroad through undeclared accounts in accordance with the second paragraph constitute prima facie evidence of taxable income);

The burden of proof does not, however, only taxpayer, the administration will also have the supported, particularly in the following cases:

- where the tax is established at the initiative of the administration's tax or without recording a deed;

- in reorganization contradictory and whether or not referral to the departmental committee on direct taxes and taxes on the turnover or the conciliation commission (except in case of absence or serious accounting irregularities the latter);

- if proceeding on its own view of the administration remains evidence of regular use of this procedure;

- evidence of abuse is the responsibility of the administration when the Advisory Committee of repression of misuse of law has not been seized or where the administration did not follow this advice;

- in case of dispute the penalty proof of bad faith and fraudulent responsibility administration.