When you are confronted with a forced collection procedure by the tax authorities, you have specific recourses available to you to contest the proceedings. The time limit for lodging a complaint provided for in Article L281 of the French Tax Procedures Code is an essential mechanism for protecting your rights. This procedure enables you to contest the formal legality of a debt collection action, but it is governed by strict rules that you need to master perfectly.

What is the L281 Claim Period?

The L281 claim period is the time frame within which you can contest the formal regularity of a deed of pursuit issued by the public accountant. Article L281 of the Livre des procédures fiscales states that you have two months from notification of the deed to lodge your claim.

This complaint does not concern the merits of the tax claim itself, but only the formal irregularities affecting the act of pursuit. It is a compulsory prior administrative appeal before any referral to the enforcement judge.

Proceedings Concerned by the L281 Time Limit

The L281 complaint period applies to all forced collection documents issued by the public accountant as part of a tax collection procedure. This procedural protection enables you to contest the formal regularity of these acts before any referral to the enforcement judge.

Among the acts that can be the subject of an L281 claim, you can contest a “avis à tiers détenteur” (third-party notice) that has formal irregularities. This act enables the public accountant to directly seize sums held by a third party (bank, employer, customer) on your behalf.

Orders to pay are another form of legal action that can be contested in this context. These formal acts generally precede enforcement measures, and must comply with strict formalities, failing which they may be annulled.

Third-party administrative seizures (SATD), distinct from third-party notices, also fall within the scope of the L281 time limit. These measures enable the authorities to freeze and seize your assets without prior judicial authorization.

Lastly, a complaint may be lodged against acts of seizure and sale and precautionary measures taken by the public accountant when they contain formal defects likely to affect your rights of defence.

Notice of collection

The taxassessment notice is the act by which the tax authorities demand payment of a tax debt. This act must comply with strict formalities, failure to do so may result in its cancellation within the L281 complaint period.

To be in order, the tax assessment notice must include a number of compulsory details: the exact nature of the tax claimed, the detailed amount in principal and accessories (penalties, late payment interest), the tax period concerned, and the legal basis for the claim. The absence or inadequacy of any of these details constitutes a formal defect that you can invoke in your claim.

The tax assessment notice must also be signed by the competent public accountant. The absence of a signature is a major irregularity with a direct impact on the validity of the document. Similarly, the deed must be sufficiently reasoned to enable you to understand the reasons for and calculation of the sum claimed. If the AMR contains such formal defects, you must act within the two-month time limit to contest it via the L281 procedure.

Seizures and precautionary measures

Administrative seizures by third parties, sales seizures and other protective measures may also be the subject of an L281 claim. These acts must comply with strict formalities, failure to do so may result in their annulment.

Objectionable precautionary measures include seizures of wages and salaries, seizures of bank accounts, and mortgages and pledges taken by the public accountant. Each of these measures must include the information required by law, in particular references to debts recovered and the remedies available.

The starting point for the two-month time limit

The two-month period starts to run from the date of notification of the writ of execution. This notification must be made in the legally prescribed manner for the time limit to be validly triggered.

Notice may be given by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, by hand-delivery against receipt, or by bailiff. The date to be taken into account is that of actual receipt of the document, not that of dispatch.

Precise Delay Calculation

The two-month period is calculated from day to day. If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the period is extended to the next working day. This rule gives you extra protection when exercising your right to claim.

The two-month period is calculated from day to day. If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the period is extended to the next working day. This rule gives you extra protection when exercising your right to claim.

To illustrate this calculation in practical terms: if you receive notification of a writ of execution on January 15, your deadline for lodging a claim will expire on March 15. If March 15 falls on a Sunday, the deadline will be automatically extended to Monday March 16, the next working day. This extension also applies if the last day falls on a public holiday, ensuring that you can exercise your right of recourse within the legal deadline.

Invocable Form Irregularities

The L281 claim can only relate to formal irregularities affecting the deed of pursuit. It is essential to understand that only substantial formal defects can lead to the cancellation of the deed, unlike minor irregularities which do not affect the taxpayer’s rights.

Substantial defects in form

One of the most frequently cited formal irregularities is theabsence of the public accountant’s signature. In order to be valid, the writ of execution must be signed by the competent accountant. Similarly, if the debtor has not been notified of the deed in accordance with the legal procedures, it will be deemed irregular.

Theabsence of any indication of the means and deadlines for appeal is also a frequently encountered substantive defect. The document must explicitly mention the available means of contestation and the applicable deadlines, thus enabling the taxpayer to effectively exercise his rights of defense.

Identification errors

An error as to the identity of the debtor constitutes a substantial irregularity. When the deed refers to a person other than the true debtor, or contains major inaccuracies concerning the debtor’s identity (surname, first name, address), this error may justify the cancellation of the debt collection action.

Another frequent defect isimprecision as to the nature or amount of the claim. The deed must indicate precisely the basis of the claim, its exact nature (tax concerned, tax period) and its detailed amount. A vague or approximate indication deprives the taxpayer of the possibility of verifying the legality of the claim.

Defects in Legal Basis

Theabsence of a legal basis for the claim, or of a reference to the writ of execution justifying the claim, constitutes a substantial irregularity. The deed must mention the legal basis of the claim and the references to the documents that establish that it is due and payable.

Distinguishing between Substantial Defects and Minor Irregularities

Case law makes a fundamental distinction between substantial defects, which affect the rights of the defence or the regularity of the procedure, and simple formal irregularities with no real impact. A minor material error, such as a spelling mistake in an address that does not prevent identification of the debtor, will not justify annulment of the deed.

To be admissible, your complaint must therefore demonstrate that the irregularity complained of is of a substantial nature, and that it has effectively affected your rights or your ability to defend yourself. This requirement directly conditions the outcome of your dispute.

Lack of Motivation

Failure to give sufficient reasons for a deed of pursuit constitutes a substantial formal defect, which may result in its annulment within the L281 time limit for lodging a claim. The obligation to state reasons requires that the writ of execution accurately specify the nature of the claim, its detailed amount and full references to the enforceable titles on which it is based.

An insufficiently reasoned deed does not allow the taxpayer to understand the reasons for the proceedings and to effectively exercise his rights of defense. For example, failure to indicate the tax period concerned, omission of the nature of the tax claimed (VAT, corporate income tax, etc.) or imprecision as to the origin of the debt constitute clear-cut deficiencies in the statement of reasons.

Jurisprudence also considers as insufficiently motivated a deed which simply mentions a global amount without detailing the different components of the debt (principal, penalties, late payment interest). This requirement for precision guarantees the transparency of administrative action and your ability to usefully contest the proceedings brought against you.

Material errors

Substantial material errors are a legitimate reason for contesting an L281 claim. These errors can take several forms: an error in the identity of the debtor (surname, first name, address), an error in the amount of the claim, confusion between several taxpayers with the same name, or an error in the tax period concerned.

In order to justify cancellation of the writ of execution, these irregularities must have a real impact on your rights. A simple typographical error with no impact on the identification of the debtor or on the amount due will generally not suffice. On the other hand, a substantial error that prevents you from understanding the exact nature of the debt claimed, or that affects your rights of defence, constitutes a sanctionable formal defect.

Case law distinguishes between purely formal errors, which have no impact on the validity of the deed, and substantial material errors, which affect the regularity of the collection procedure. Your claim must demonstrate how the error found causes you actual prejudice or compromises the exercise of your rights.

The Claims Procedure

Your claim must be addressed to the public accountant who issued the deed of pursuit. To secure proof of your claim, and to comply with the two-month time limit, we strongly recommend that you send your claim by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. This method of dispatch guarantees certain proof of the date on which your claim was lodged. Alternatively, you can hand-deliver your claim to the public accountant’s office against a dated and signed receipt, which will also serve as proof of the date of your claim.

Your claim must clearly set out the formal irregularities you are alleging. Be sure to keep a complete copy of your claim and all attached documents, as well as proof of dispatch or delivery.

The accountant has two months to respond to your claim. Silence during this period is tantamount to an implicit rejection, enabling you to take your case to the enforcement judge.

Claim content

Your complaint must precisely identify the disputed deed, mentioning its date, exact nature (notice à tiers détenteur, saisie-vente, etc.) and references. You must set out in a clear, structured manner the formal irregularities you are claiming, detailing them point by point with the corresponding legal grounds.

The claim must include several essential elements: your full contact details, identification of the public accountant to whom the claim is addressed, precise description of the disputed act, a list of the formal defects observed, and your explicit requests (cancellation of the act, suspension of proceedings). Each irregularity must be supported by precise legal arguments, citing the applicable legal and regulatory texts.

It is strongly recommended that you enclose all relevant supporting documents: a copy of the disputed act, proof of notification, previous correspondence with the administration, and any other element demonstrating the alleged irregularities. The quality of your argumentation and the thoroughness of your file directly determine the outcome of your claim. The assistance of a tax lawyer will help you optimize your drafting and identify all the legal means available to you.

Consequences of not meeting the deadline

If you fail to comply with the two-month time limit, your right to make a claim is foreclosed. You will no longer be able to contest the formal irregularities of the deed before the enforcement judge. The purpose of this rule is to guarantee the legal certainty and stability of collection procedures.

Exceptions to foreclosure

However, case law and doctrine recognize certain exceptions to this strict rule of foreclosure. These exceptions remain limited, but may prove decisive in particular situations.

The first recognized exception is force majeure. If you were absolutely unable to act within the time limit due to an unforeseeable, irresistible and external event, the time limit may be considered unenforceable. This could include prolonged hospitalization with total incapacity, a natural disaster preventing all communication, or exceptional circumstances making it materially impossible to file a claim.

Another major exception is the defect in notification. If the writ of execution has not been duly served in the legally prescribed manner, the time limit for lodging a claim cannot validly run. For example, if the notification was sent to the wrong address, without respecting the procedures laid down by law, or if you never received the deed, you can contest the enforceability of the time limit.

The absence or inaccuracy of information concerning the right of appeal is also a ground for contesting the foreclosure. If the deed of pursuit does not indicate the means and deadlines for recourse, or if this information is erroneous or incomplete, you can argue that the deadline for lodging a claim was not enforceable against you. This obligation to provide information is a prerequisite for the validity of the time limit.

Other available remedies

This foreclosure does not, however, deprive you of all recourse. You still have the option of contesting the merits of the debt itself through the appropriate legal channels. Contesting the merits of a tax debt is subject to rules and deadlines that are different from those applicable to formal irregularities in debt collection.

Relationship with other remedies

The L281 claim is linked to other contestation procedures within the tax collection framework. This requires a precise understanding of the different avenues of appeal available and how they complement each other.

At the same time, you can lodge an opposition to prosecution if you consider that the substantive conditions for collection have not been met. Unlike the L281 claim, which is aimed exclusively at formal irregularities, opposition to debt collection allows you to contest the very existence of the debt, its payability or the absence of a valid enforcement order.

Complementary remedies

It is important to distinguish the L281 claim from other contentious appeals. While the L281 claim is a compulsory prior administrative recourse for formal defects, contesting the merits of the claim is subject to other specific procedures, depending on the nature of the tax concerned.

You can therefore combine an L281 claim to contest the formal regularity of a legal action with a traditional contentious claim relating to the substance of the taxation. These two procedures are independent and subject to separate deadlines, enabling you to protect all your rights in a coordinated manner.

Global Litigation Strategy

An effective litigation strategy requires early identification of all available means of defence. If the deed of pursuit contains formal irregularities, the L281 claim must be filed as a matter of priority within the two-month time limit. At the same time, if you dispute the amount or existence of the tax debt, you must initiate the appropriate contentious procedures within their own deadlines.

This global approach maximizes your chances of obtaining either the annulment of the writ of execution for formal defects, or the discharge or reduction of the tax contested on the merits. The assistance of a tax lawyer is particularly valuable in coordinating these various steps and avoiding any foreclosure.

Deferred payment

If you dispute the validity of the claim, you can apply for a deferment of payment, which suspends the debt while your claim is being examined. However, this measure requires you to provide sufficient guarantees.

A major advantage of the deferment of payment is that it enables you to avoid prosecution and enforcement measures for the duration of the legal proceedings. However, the granting of this measure is subject to strict conditions. You must provide guarantees commensurate with the amount of the disputed claim, unless you can demonstrate that doing so would entail consequences that would be difficult to repair.

It’s important to distinguish between a stay of payment and an L281 claim. Whereas the L281 claim relates exclusively to irregularities in the form of the deed of pursuit, the stay of payment comes into play when you dispute the very substance of the tax claim. These two mechanisms can be used in a complementary way in your defense strategy against tax collection.

The Importance of Legal Assistance

The complexity of tax collection procedures and the strict deadlines imposed make the assistance of a tax lawyer indispensable. A qualified professional will be able to identify any irregularities of form that may be invoked, and formulate a legally sound claim.

In addition to their technical expertise, tax lawyers guarantee the protection of professional secrecy, which is essential when you need to explain your financial and tax situation. This absolute confidentiality means you can discuss your case in complete transparency, without fear of disclosure.

Strict adherence to the two-month time limit and the quality of your legal arguments directly determine your chances of having the debt collection proceedings annulled. Prompt, targeted action maximizes your ability to defend against the tax authorities’ collection measures.

The Effect of the Claim on Lawsuits

Contrary to certain tax procedures, the L281 claim does not automatically suspend proceedings initiated by the tax authorities. This essential feature deserves particular attention: while your claim is being examined, the public accountant retains the right to pursue recovery of the tax debt.

Faced with this situation, you need to adopt a parallel strategy. You can apply to the enforcement judge for a stay of proceedings, provided your claim is of a serious nature. This is often necessary because :

• Only a court decision can effectively block collection actions.
• The request must demonstrate that your arguments on formal irregularity are well-founded.
• The judge is free to decide whether the conditions for suspension have been met.

Speed is of the essence in this procedure. If you don’t act quickly, collection measures will take full effect, despite your ongoing dispute. A third-party notice could empty your bank accounts, or a seizure and sale could be organized even though you are contesting the legality of these acts. It is therefore imperative to adopt a proactive approach, combining administrative complaints and, if necessary, legal action, to protect your interests effectively.