Decisions of the Council of State dated June 18, 2024

Yesterday, the Council of State issued several tax rulings concerning:

- The failure to mention the possibility of appealing to the Direct Tax Commission in the response to the taxpayer’s comments does not constitute a guarantee, and a failure to provide such information does not constitute an irregularity leading to the cancellation of the tax assessment:Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, June 18, 2024, No. 472077, Cited in the tables

- The burden of proof regarding the mailing of the response to the taxpayer’s comments: when the taxpayer disputes having received the response to his or her comments,administration prove that the notification was properly served. In particular, it must demonstrate that the taxpayer was notified that the letter was available for pickup at the post office and that it was not returned before the expiration of the procedural deadline. The Council of State specifies, however, that ifadministration prove that the procedural deadline was met, the taxpayer cannot claim a procedural irregularity unless he or she proves—notably by producing a certificate from the postal service—that he or she attempted to collect the letter in question: CE, 3rd and 8th Ch., June 18, 2024, No. 472623, Cited in the tables

- The VAT classification of food products prepared for immediate consumption (in this case, sushi): ECJ, 9th and 10th Chambers, June 18, 2024, No. 476093, Cited in the tables

- Constitutionality of the tax on company vehicles: Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, June 18, 2024, No. 474966, Cited in the tables