Decision of the Council of State dated March 18, 2024

Last Monday, the Council of State rejected the motion for summary judgment filed alongside the REP seeking to overturn the ruling in favor of taxpayers regarding the tax regime for furnished tourist rentals.

The High Court finds that the requirement of urgency necessary for summary proceedings has not been met because "the appeals for abuse of power filed by the petitioners are scheduled to be heard in the coming weeks, based on the report of the 8th Chamber of the Litigation Division of the Council of State."

The decision thus suggests that the Council of State will rule on the legality of the administrative doctrine before the end of the reporting period.

In the past, the Council of State has ruled that the annulment of a BOFiP found to be contrary to the law after it has been applied by the taxpayer has no effect; the taxpayer may still rely on Article L.80 A (CE, Sect., Opinion, March 8, 2013, No. 353782).

If the doctrine is revoked during the filing period, the question may arise as to whether a taxpayer who filed a return before the doctrine was revoked—relying on it—must amend that return if the doctrine is revoked before the filing deadline.

CE, Summary Proceedings, March 18, 2024, No. 492386, Unpublished