It is the waltz of creators in the luxury and fashionThese seven managers had contracts in 1998They agiottent as once the characters of BalzacConsequences of deregulation of the European marketsThat should result from the decisions of the GSC and FO 6Things go fast and Luc Brohan is revealedIt is a history book and spiral notebooks09 on a 5 point scale that is rather goodby using socalled income modelvaluation modelsAn original system for records of mediationThe circle of tax calls for a profound reform of the procedure of abuse of right. Because it is now based on too subjective interpretations.
With the abuse of law, the tax administration has considerable power: toward a taxpayer, it may decide such or such of its acts is fraudulent. This justifies not only tax more heavy than spontaneously paid, but more a criminal penalty (1) imposed by the administration itself.
The sound management of the father and the head of Enterprise command yet pay the least tax possible. Although subject heard by the law and to act transparently, out of any fictitious transaction or concealment. This is why, when the law offers several possible paths to achieve a legitimate aim, it cannot then be accused of having borrowed the cheapest way from a tax point of view. In addition, individual freedom cannot admit that pressure could be exerted on the taxpayer when exercise his choice.
However, by the use that too often are the Auditors, the abuse of right procedure has evolved into deterrent: the individuals come to waive such operation, or to achieve on such tax less advantageous basis. A deep reform of the procedure for the Suppression of the abuse of law became necessary.
The State Council has recently completed its definition. It considers that a transaction, it motivated by an exclusively fiscal aim, is reprehensible only if the advantage thus obtained is a misuse of the scheme of the Act.
According to this jurisprudence are indeed fraudulent acts which, "looking for the benefit of a literal application of the texts against the objectives pursued by the authors, could be inspired by no reason other than to evade or reduce the tax burden (...)" (stop "Janfin" on September 27, 2006).
Ensure legal certainty
Thus, it is said that the test for infringement of the objectives of the Act is a substantial condition of abuse of right. It is an essential accuracy, but it must be put in perspective with another democratic requirement, that of legal certainty. However, the latter imposes clear and specific rules of law. This fundamental requirement cannot accommodate a "shamanic" drift, which would have to question the spirit of Parliament prior to any application of the law! Still, the application of the law cannot be subject to uncertain and subjective of the supposed spirit of Parliament research!
It is yet to that it carries, with the invitation extended by the Council of State to the Auditors and to the judges to refer to the "objectives" of the authors of the texts. This term is much too vague. should the Act evokes the objectives "exposed" and not "pursued" by the authors of the texts. So, there is abuse and criminal criminality in the event of breach of a clear prohibition. In the meantime, the authority granted to the administration to exclude the benefit of a right on the basis that the taxpayer would, according to her, abused of the Act, can only promote adjustments based on a subjective assessment and create conditions for a breach of the equality of the taxpayers to the tax. In addition, given that by sanctions that it provides for the Suppression of abuse of right procedure has a genuine criminal dimension, can fear the proliferation of incriminations operated without text or the letter of the text, contrary to the principle of restrictive interpretation of the penal laws.
The time where the plea of unconstitutionality in positive law, it should wish that Parliament should take its responsibilities and fully meets the fundamental requirements of the rule of law. It is better to prevent than cure...
