Corporate tax litigation lawyer in Paris: from the SME's tax claim to the administrative court.

For tax reassessments, the claim targets the taxes put into recovery: the recovery notice sets out the duties, interest and surcharges actually claimed and is the starting point of the time limit. The Book of Tax Procedures provides for an earlier opening in one particular case, a reassessment that reduces a VAT deficit or deductible VAT surplus without leading to additional tax: the claim is then possible as soon as the reply to the company's observations is received, thirty days after a notification of tax assessed ex officio or after the commission's opinion where it was seised (Article L. 190 of the LPF). The deadline is calculated from the recovery notice: for corporate income tax or VAT, the claim remains admissible until 31 December of the second year following its notification (Article R*196-1); for the CFE, a local direct tax, the deadline is 31 December of the following year (Article R*196-2). A company that has been reassessed also has a period equal to the one the administration had for reassessment (Article R*196-3), which may lengthen the timetable for certain years. The firm checks both limits before concluding that a time limit has expired, then sets a filing date that leaves time to assemble the accounting documents.

A company's claim must bear its author's signature, and where it is unsigned the administration invites the taxpayer to regularise it within thirty days (Article R*197-3). The manager of a SARL, the chairman of a SAS or anyone entitled to act on the company's behalf signs without any special authority. A third party, for example a chartered accountant or an employee, must by contrast show a proper mandate produced with the document, whereas a lawyer registered with a bar is exempt from this (Article R*197-4). The question also reaches the court: in a case where a SARL acted through unidentified representatives, the Marseille administrative court of appeal checked who had authority to represent it, then dismissed the application as inadmissible because that person could not be identified (CAA Marseille, 31 May 2018, No. 16MA02775). The Kbis extract, the articles of association and any interim administration should therefore be checked before signing, especially where the company's management has changed since the audit.

It can, and this situation often arises where a company has requested the refund of a VAT credit. The Council of State has held that a refund request made under Article 271 of the General Tax Code (Code général des impôts) constitutes a claim, and that a rejection set out in a reassessment proposal can amount to an express decision where it clearly emerges from the document (CE, 14 November 2025, No. 498880). In that case, the company had not gone to court and had carried the credit forward on its following returns before requesting a refund again. The Council of State dismissed its appeal: the first decision had become final and the later requests were held to be out of time. The decision is unfavourable to the company and shows the practical risk. Where the document does not state the remedies and time limits for appeal, the company in principle has a reasonable period which, save in exceptional circumstances, cannot exceed one year from the date it became aware of it, as the same decision recalls. The firm therefore reads every reassessment proposal to see whether it decides an earlier request by the company.

The tax office has six months to rule and may announce, before that period ends, an additional period of no more than three months (Article R*198-10). Once the six-month period has expired without a decision, the company can bring the dispute before the administrative court (Article R*199-1). It is not required to do so by a fixed date: in its opinion of 21 October 2020, the Council of State indicated that the administration's silence does not start any time limit for challenge as long as an express rejection decision has not been properly notified (CE, opinion, 21 October 2020, No. 443327). The same opinion reserves the two-month period for an express rejection that states the remedies and time limits for appeal. Waiting is not always prudent, however: recovery may resume if no stay was requested, and an explicit decision may arrive at any time with its own time limit. The firm therefore assesses whether it is worth going to court without waiting, in light of the company's cash flow and the guarantees already provided.

Yes, provided it expressly requests this in the claim and quantifies the expected relief, or states the basis for it (Article L. 277 of the LPF). The disputed part of the duties and penalties then ceases to be payable until the administration's or the court's final decision. Above an amount set by decree, the public accountant asks for guarantees: a bank guarantee, mortgage, pledge over the business or a cash payment into a holding account (Article R*277-1). Without guarantees, or if they are judged insufficient, the accountant may take protective measures. If the accountant refuses the guarantees offered by the company, it has fifteen days from receipt of the refusal to apply to the urgent applications judge of the administrative court, after depositing one tenth of the disputed taxes, a bank guarantee or the delivery of listed securities being allowed in place of that deposit (Article L. 279). For an SME, the choice of guarantees weighs on bank credit and on supplier relationships: the firm discusses this with the director before filing, so that the request for a stay does not create a cash-flow difficulty heavier than the reassessment itself.

No. The administrative court can only be seised of the taxes that the claim already covered (Article R*200-2), and case law infers from this that it cannot be asked for a discharge greater than the amount claimed either. The Marseille administrative court of appeal applied this rule to a professional who challenged before the court all the VAT reassessments from an audit, whereas the claims covered only a few months and a fraction of the amount: the submissions were declared inadmissible for the remainder (CAA Marseille, 2 October 2026, No. 25MA01509). The Council of State reasons in the same way where a partial relief has already been granted: a judgment that had upheld the whole of the application of a property holding company (SCI) was set aside, the submissions being only partly admissible (CE, 23 December 2025, No. 503744). The claim should therefore cover all the periods and amounts that can be disputed, even if a head of claim is later dropped.

Yes. Both the company and the administration may put forward any new argument before the court and then the court of appeal, as long as the investigation remains open and without exceeding the relief originally requested (Article L. 199 C of the LPF). In the judgment of 2 October 2026, the Marseille court accepted that an argument based on the irregularity of the recovery notice could be raised for the first time before the court, with no effect on the admissibility of the application (CAA Marseille, 2 October 2026, No. 25MA01509). The applicant nonetheless lost on that point, the court having held the notice regular and the signatory competent. This flexibility applies to arguments, not to scope: a new argument does not allow the claim to be extended to another year or a higher amount. It also benefits the administration, which may defend the tax on a different line of reasoning during the proceedings. It is therefore in the company's interest for the claim to set out the essential arguments from the outset, the application then allowing the argument to be completed from the documents produced by the tax office.

The answer depends on what happened during the audit. Where the departmental commission for direct taxes and turnover taxes was seised, the administration bears the burden of proof whatever opinion was given (Article L. 192 of the LPF). The burden shifts to the taxpayer where two conditions are met together, accounts with serious irregularities and a tax assessed in line with the commission's opinion, the administration still having to prove before the court the serious irregularities it relies on. It also falls on the taxpayer where there are no accounts or equivalent documents. The commission is competent only for certain disagreements, notably the amount of profit or turnover determined under an actual-profit regime (Article L. 59 A of the LPF). Outside these provisions, each party establishes the facts useful to its case, but the Council of State recalls that evidence that only one party holds can be demanded only from that party (CE, 10 May 2019, No. 413847). For an SME, this means that inventories, stock entries and internal documents must be produced by the company itself, with the explanations of the statutory auditor or chartered accountant where they can shed light on the entries in dispute.

Not automatically. Where the audit takes place, as is the rule, on the company's premises, it is for the company complaining that it could not engage with the auditor to show that the auditor refused any debate. In the case decided on 10 May 2019, the Council of State noted that the auditor had met the company's representative several times at its registered office, and the company's appeal was dismissed (CE, 10 May 2019, No. 413847). This decision is unfavourable to the taxpayer and illustrates the difficulty of proof. Such an argument is prepared with dated evidence: a diary of visits, emails requesting an appointment that went unanswered, the minutes of the closing meeting and the actual time spent on site. For companies whose turnover or receipts do not exceed the thresholds referred to in Article L. 52 of the LPF, the on-site audit is in principle limited to three months, subject to the exceptions and suspensions provided for in that text. The firm compares the director's account with the statements in the reassessment proposal, which often itself describes the meetings held during the audit.

It must inform the company of the content and source of the information obtained from third parties on which it bases the reassessments, and give it a copy before the recovery notice is issued if the company asks for it (Article L. 76 B of the LPF). The Council of State applies this obligation to all assessment procedures and specifies that the information must be precise enough to allow access to the documents before the recovery notice is issued (CE, 24 December 2020, No. 433456). In that case, it nonetheless set aside the judgment favourable to the taxpayers, because the court had not examined whether they could themselves, effectively and directly, access the company's bank statements. The sanction is also limited: the failure affects only the taxes for which the documents were used, whether to conduct the procedure or to calculate the tax (CE, 24 April 2019, No. 414420). The request for disclosure should therefore be made in writing, during the audit, and the complaint then attached only to the reassessments concerned.

The 40% surcharge penalises deliberate breach (Article 1729 of the General Tax Code). Where the company challenges it, the burden of proving bad faith falls on the administration (Article L. 195 A of the LPF). The Council of State requires it to show two elements: the understatement or inaccuracy of the returns, then the intention to evade tax. In a case of VAT reassessments against a SAS, it upheld the discharge of the surcharges, the court having been entitled to find intention not established since the omissions concerned only part of the audited period (CE, 23 July 2024, No. 489235). This is not a general rule: each case is assessed according to the nature of the errors, their amount, their repetition and the company's competence. The challenge to the penalties is run in parallel with the challenge to the duties, with its own arguments, because an SME may lose on the principal tax and obtain a discharge of the surcharges. The firm rereads the reasons given for the penalty in the reassessment proposal, which are often shorter than those given for the reassessments.

For corporate income tax, VAT and similar taxes, the company is not required to use a lawyer before the administrative court. The Code of Administrative Justice in principle requires representation by a lawyer for applications for discharge or reduction of sums claimed (Article R. 431-2), but it removes this requirement for disputes relating to direct taxes and turnover taxes (Article R. 431-3). The application may also be signed by another representative, who must then show a proper mandate (Article R*200-2 of the LPF). The company acts through its legal representative, and the judge may check its standing to sue. The difficulty lies less in admissibility than in technique: delimiting the submissions, choosing the useful arguments, replying to the administration's pleadings and respecting the close of the investigation. A company acting alone should at least check that its application covers the same taxes as its claim and that it is filed within the period opened by the administration's decision or silence.

Yes, but in a framework separate from tax litigation. Where fraudulent manoeuvres or serious and repeated failure to comply with tax obligations have made recovery impossible, the de jure or de facto director may be declared jointly and severally liable for the company's taxes and penalties by the president of the judicial court (Article L. 267 of the LPF). The Court of Cassation held that "the decision to bring the action provided for in Article L. 267 of the Book of Tax Procedures, which is taken by the departmental public finance director, even though only the public accountant may bring the action, is not a decision subject to a prior adversarial procedure" (our translation) (Cass. com., 15 February 2023, No. 21-18.395). The director's appeal was dismissed: this decision is unfavourable to the director. The defence is then built on the conditions of the provision, namely the seriousness and repetition of the failings, their attribution to the director and their link with the impossibility of recovery. The company's claim and this action are not the same, but the outcome of the disputed reassessments affects the amount the accountant can claim from the director.

Where the administration grants relief following a claim for an error in the tax base or calculation, or where the court orders it, sums already paid are refunded with late-payment interest running from the day of payment (Article L. 208 of the LPF). Sums deposited as guarantees are returned with the same interest. The starting date can be disputed: the Paris administrative court of appeal held, for a value-added contribution paid in instalments, that interest runs from the day the sum became unavailable to the company, and ordered the State to pay a further amount (CAA Paris, 20 July 2022, No. 21PA01698). In that case, the company had had to file a second claim to obtain the difference, then appeal. The calculation attached to the relief decision should therefore be checked, the dates of each payment reconciled and any shortfall claimed promptly. For an SME, this interest partly compensates the cash-flow cost borne during the dispute.