When an accountant tries to claim his bed and a mobile home as tax deductions

A certified public accountant was a partner in a partnership whose corporate purpose was "business consulting and other management consulting services."

Following a tax audit of the company,administration it had deducted various expenses, including "expenses related to the purchase of a bed, a wardrobe, household appliances, linens, dishes, clothing, and food."

In order to justify deducting these expenses, the accountant, rather than admitting that he had neglected his bookkeeping, claimed that they had been incurred in the course of the company’s business without providing any further details.

The Administrative Court of Appeal, to which the case was referred, ruled that, in the absence of further details or evidence, these expenses were not deductible. The accountant was therefore unable to explain the purpose of a bed in the context of providing “business advice and other management consulting services.”

administration alsoadministration that the company had claimed depreciation on a "mobile home […] located on a four-star campground" and challenged the validity of that deduction.

Once again, the accountant’s explanation that the space was used to receive clients failed to convince the court.

While the court does not question the appropriateness of a certified public accountant entertaining clients at a campground, it notes above all that the company had only one client—namely, another company owned by the certified public accountant—and that no evidence was presented to justify entertaining clients in the mobile home.

The court has therefore upheld the tax assessment, as well as the application of the 40% surcharges.

The accountant might try to team up with the notary —who claims deductions for a club membership to dine at Chez Castel, family trips, and the costs of a reception held the day after his wedding—and the architect, who is trying to claim a deduction for membership in the Calf’s Head Brotherhood.

CAA Paris, May 29, 2026, No. 24PA00639

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.

Next
Next

Avoiding the payment of employee profit-sharing may sometimes help avoid a finding of improper management