Decision by the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal regarding the absence of an explicit option in the case of computerized checks
In the event of a computerized audit as part of a tax audit of a business (LPF, Art. L.47 A),administration must offer the taxpayer three options for conducting the audit:
either the taxpayer performs the computerized audit on the taxpayer's own equipment;
either the taxpayer performs the data processing required byadministration on their ownadministration
either the taxpayer providesadministration withadministration ofadministration documents, data, and records, and the audit is not conducted on the company’s premises.
According to the text, the taxpayer must“formally state in writing” which optionthey have chosen . In practice,administration therefore haveadministration sign a document stating their choice.
In the case heard by the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal, the company manager had indeed signed the letter but had not checked the option he had chosen. He nevertheless providedadministration withadministration copy of the files, enabling them to conduct the audit in accordance with the third option outlined in the letter.
The Court finds that even though no company executive expressly indicated a preference for one of the three options as required by law, the procedure is not invalid because the company formalized its choice by submitting copies of the files in accordance with the third option.