Is Article L.262 of the Finance Act Unconstitutional? Is Tax Solidarity at Risk?

In response to a preliminary ruling on constitutionality that had been referred to it, the Constitutional Council ruled on the constitutionality of the former version of Article L.262 of the Code of Tax Procedures, and more specifically on the possibility of ordering the person (i.e., the third party subject to attachment) who receives an administrative attachment order against a third-party holder and who fails to comply with that request or makes a false statement to pay the tax debt.

The Constitutional Council first notes that, according to the case law of the Court of Cassation, a third party against whom a tax lien has been filed has no recourse against the taxpayer.

It will therefore rule that this mechanism, insofar as it is intended to penalize a third party to the tax debt for failure to comply with a reporting obligation, must be classified as a penalty.

He therefore considers that ordering someone to pay another person’s tax debt, solely because of a failure to file a tax return, is disproportionate to the seriousness of that failure.

It then struck down the provision without imposing any time limit on the effect of its decision.

The Constitutional Council’s reasoning could raise questions about the constitutionality or compliance with international conventions of tax solidarity measures, or even their legal status if they were to be classified as penalties, given that the mechanism being penalized is similar to those measures.

Constitutional Council, June 5, 2026, No. 2026-1203 (QPC)

This legal watch produced by Mispelon Avocat, a law firm specializing in French tax audit and French tax litigation. You can follow this legal watch subscribing to the newsletter via this link.