Is it permissible to record a meeting during a tax audit?

A company that had been subject to a tax audit had invited, in addition to its attorney, a court officer to the meeting to review the audit findings so that the officer could record the proceedings using a voice recorder and then transcribe the remarks made.

At the start of the meeting, the inspectors asked that the recording be stopped, but the taxpayers refused. With their supervisor’s approval, the inspectors then left the premises.

Subsequently, the company was subject to a tax reassessment, and the taxpayers requested that the proceedings be dismissed, arguing that the failure to hold a summary hearing violated their right to an oral and adversarial hearing.

According to the Court’s ruling, the company believed that the bailiff had an advisory role and that his presence was intended to“secure evidence of what it considered to be the auditors’ unethical conduct […] during a previous audit.”

The Court, however, rejected the argument, holding that:

• the bailiff’s presence“served no other purpose than to intimidateadministration officialsadministration circumstances that were likely to hinder the conduct of a calm discussion.”

• The recording prevented the holding of an informal oral discussion, as provided for in the Charter for Audited Taxpayers. By refusing to turn off the recording, the company itself prevented this oral discussion from taking place.

• The company has not provided evidence that, during previous meetings,“the auditor refused to engage in any discussion.”

The company's argument is therefore rejected.

The tax assessment, which was being challenged in court, has been upheld, with the exception of the partial application of a penalty for willful misconduct.

CAA Nancy, June 5, 2025, No. 23NC00517

This monitoring service is provided by Mispelon Avocat, a law firm specializing in tax compliance and litigation. You can stay updated by subscribing to the newsletter via this link.