Decisions of the Council of State dated February 18, 2026
The Conseil d'Etat rulings on tax matters the day before yesterday concerning:
the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of the fictitious nature of an invoice used by the taxpayer in order to apply the surcharge for fraudulent practices (CE, 9th and 10th Ch., Feb. 18, 2026, No. 498332, Lebon T.)
the inclusion of parking areas in the development tax (Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, Feb. 18, 2026, No. 498149, Lebon T.)
Exclusion from the annual office tax of a portion of an office space used for the maintenance and repair of light motor vehicles that is not accessible to the public (CE, 9th and 10th Ch., Feb. 18, 2026, No. 501752, Lebon T.)
the expenses to be taken into account in determining whether the TOM rate is manifestly disproportionate to the projected amount of expenses (Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, Feb. 18, 2026, No. 498197, Lebon T.)
No Abuse of Rights in the Parent-Subsidiary Arrangement in the Context of a Reorganization – Aubépar Case (Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, Feb. 18, 2026, No. 500134, unpublished)
the refusal to refer a preliminary ruling on constitutionality (QPC) concerning the social security contribution on investment returns linked to unit-linked benefits in life insurance policies in the event of the insured’s death (Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, Feb. 18, 2026, No. 504077, unpublished)
In addition, over the past few weeks, the Conseil d'Etat also issued rulings regarding:
the unlawfulness of Article R*196-1 of the LPF in that it provides, with respect to withholding taxes, for a deadline for filing a claim that expires on December 31 of the year following the year in which the withholding took place (Council of State, 8th and 3rd Chambers, Feb. 16, 2026, No. 500909, Lebon T.; link to the news article published on the firm’s website)
The Franco-Swiss Tax Treaty and the Impossibility of Establishing Horizontal Tax Integration When the Parent Company Is Located in Switzerland (CE, 8th and 3rd Div., Jan. 20, 2026, No. 493939, unpublished)
the executive’s compensation through a service agreement with another company. The Conseil d'Etat the CAA’s ruling, which had exonerated the taxpayer without examining“whether the company’s competent governing bodies […] had thereby intended to indirectly compensate its executives”(CE, 9th Ch., Feb. 12, 2026, No. 500842, unpublished)
This monitoring service is provided by Mispelon Avocat, a law firm specializing in tax audits and tax litigation. You can stay updated by subscribing to the newsletter via this link.