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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment