When a tax assessment is overturned because documents contain too many cross-outs

Following a tax audit, a company was notified of a VAT assessment. To justify the assessment,administration , in particular, on documents obtained during searches and interviews with employees.

As part of the correction procedure, the company askedadministration provide itadministration all the documents supporting the assessment.administration thenadministration the transcripts of the employee interviews, but redacted certain passages.

In court, the company argued thatadministration breached its obligation to disclose the documents by redacting those passages.

administration that it was required to proceed in this manner in light of "the duty of professional confidentiality necessary to protect the privacy of a third party in matters involving requests for opinions from judicial police officers that do not pertain to specific facts."

The Administrative Court of Appeals, to which the case was referred, noted thatadministration omitted most of the employees’ responses from the hearing transcripts.

It will hold that employees’ personal opinions regarding the company’s practices “do not, by their very nature—and even less so with respect to their employer—constitute information covered by professional secrecy or any other legally protected privilege that would prevent their disclosure to the taxpayer.”

On the contrary, the Court notes that "these opinions may, however, reveal information regarding the company's operating practices and conditions, as confirmed by passages from the seven minutes in question, the contents of which have been disclosed by the parties."

The Court therefore finds thatadministration fulfill its obligation to provide all the documents supporting the adjustment and sets aside the adjustment.

CAA Toulouse, December 31, 2025, No. 23TL01869

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.

Previous
Previous

Is a Hong Kong private limited company equivalent to a SARL or an SAS?

Next
Next

Appeal for abuse of authority against the “Cumcum” ruling: appeal dismissed as moot