Receiving a proposition de rectification from the tax authorities is a decisive moment in a tax audit. This document notifies you of the tax adjustments envisaged by the tax authorities, and opens an essential adversarial phase. You have precise rights and strict deadlines for defending your position. A well-argued dispute can lead to the total or partial abandonment of the proposed adjustments.

What does it mean to contest a rectification proposal?

Challenging a tax reassessment proposal means exercising your right to respond to tax reassessments issued by the tax authorities. This is part of the adversarial principle that guarantees your defense. You can dispute the amounts, legal qualifications or calculation methods used by the tax auditor. The dispute may concern the interpretation of your accounting documents or the application of tax rules to your situation.

Disputes are filed during the amicable phase, before any tax assessment. It’s your first opportunity for dialogue with the tax authorities. This stage often determines the outcome of the tax audit, and can avoid long and costly legal disputes. Solid arguments can lead to a total or partial reduction in the sums initially claimed.

Legal deadlines for contesting

You have 30 days from receipt of the proposed rectification to formulate your observations, in accordance witharticle L57 of the French Tax Code. This period runs from the date of actual notification of the document. The tax authorities may grant an extension of a further 30 days if you submit a reasoned request before the initial deadline expires.

Respecting this deadline is of major strategic importance. Contrary to popular belief, the absence of a response within the time limit does not, according to established case law, constitute tacit acceptance of the reassessments. However, if you exceed the deadline, you lose the right to an extension, and your ability to negotiate with the authorities is significantly reduced. You still have the option of replying after the deadline, but the tax authorities may proceed with collection without waiting for your observations.

In certain specific procedures, different deadlines apply. In the case of automatic taxation, you have 60 days to submit your observations. The standard 30-day deadline also applies topersonal tax status examination (ESFP) procedures. In the case of an accounting audit, special deadlines may apply depending on the nature of the rectifications envisaged.

Starting point

The 30-day period begins on the date of actual receipt of the rectification proposal. If the letter is sent by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, the date of first presentation of the envelope is decisive, even if you pick it up at a later date. In the case of hand-delivery by the inspector, the date on the document and your signature are decisive. Always keep all proof of receipt: the letter carrier’s notice, the signed acknowledgement of receipt or the hand-delivery receipt are essential evidence in the event of a dispute over compliance with the deadline.

Admissible grounds for objection

There are several legal grounds on which you can effectively challenge a tax adjustment proposal. You can invoke errors of fact, errors of law or procedural flaws. Each ground requires precise, documented argumentation to be accepted by the tax authorities.

Factual errors include inaccuracies in the assessment of accounting documents, calculation errors or omissions of deductible expenses. Rigorous bookkeeping and complete supporting documents are your best means of demonstrating these material errors.

Errors of law relate to the legal qualification of transactions or the application of an inappropriate tax regime. The administration may have misinterpreted the nature of a transaction, or applied legal provisions inappropriate to your situation. Lastly, procedural flaws punish the administration’s failure to comply with the rules governing tax audits: failure to state reasons, exceeding legal deadlines or violating taxpayer guarantees.

Errors of fact and calculation

Material errors are the easiest grounds for dispute, since they are based on objective, verifiable facts. They represent around 40% of the grounds for dispute accepted by the tax authorities. You can demonstrate that the tax authorities have misinterpreted accounting documents, omitted certain deductible expenses (for example, the deduction of personnel costs for €15,000 or social security contributions for €8,500) or overstated revenues (such as double counting of the same sales invoice).

Calculation errors in the application of tax rates or coefficients are also questionable. For example, the erroneous application of the standard VAT rate of 20% instead of the reduced rate of 10% or 5.5% on eligible services can generate an unjustified adjustment of several thousand euros. Similarly, an error in calculating declining-balance depreciation, or the application of an inappropriate multiplying factor, is a legitimate reason for dispute.

In the normal adversarial procedure, the burden of proof lies with the tax authorities, in accordance with article L193 of the Livre des Procédures Fiscales. It is therefore up to the auditor to justify the validity of his rectifications, which strengthens your position when you dispute clearly identifiable factual or calculation errors.

Errors of legal characterization

The tax authorities may have applied an inappropriate tax regime to your situation. For example, it may have requalified professional income as property income, or vice versa. In this case, the dispute concerns the legal analysis of the facts and their appropriate tax classification.

The most common misclassifications concern the nature of income (BIC, BNC, property income), the deductibility or non-deductibility of certain expenses, and the distinction between normal and abnormal management. The tax authorities may also challenge the tax regime chosen (simplified real income tax, normal real income tax, micro-enterprise) or requalify transactions as abuse of rights.

These misclassifications have significant financial consequences, since they modify the applicable tax rates and calculation methods. To challenge them effectively requires an in-depth legal analysis of your situation and an argument based on administrative doctrine and case law. The intervention of a tax lawyer is often decisive in demonstrating the inadequacy of the qualification adopted by the auditor and obtaining the reinstatement of the appropriate tax regime.

Procedural defects

The administration’s failure to comply with procedural rules does not systematically lead to the invalidation of reassessments. According to the Conseil d’Etat’s established case law, only substantial defects that infringe on the rights of the defense lead to the total discharge of tax assessments. Minor defects, which have no impact on the regularity of the procedure, do not affect the validity of the reassessments. This distinction is of the utmost importance in your challenge strategy.

Substantial defects frequently cited include exceeding the tax statute of limitations (3 years according to article L169 of the LPF, extended to 6 or 10 years in certain cases), failure to give sufficient reasons for the rectification proposal, failure to send the audit notice within the legal timeframe, or the excessive duration of the tax audit. Non-compliance with the audited taxpayer’s charter of rights, in particular the guarantees set out in articles L47 and L48 of the LPF, also constitutes an admissible ground for challenge.

Article L16 of the LPF provides a strict framework for the administration’s rights of communication, any breach of which may vitiate the entire procedure. Article L80 CA of the LPF also provides a guarantee against changes in administrative doctrine. It is imperative to raise these procedural flaws in your first response to the rectification proposal, as their late invocation may be considered inadmissible by the administration and the courts.

How to make a complaint

Your response must be written, structured and legally argued. Send it by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the inspector who signed the rectification proposal. Keep a complete copy of your letter and all supporting documents.

The form of your protest is of paramount importance. Use a professional and courteous tone, while remaining firm on your positions. Number your arguments and refer specifically to the points of the proposal you dispute. Each assertion must be supported by tangible evidence: accounting extracts, invoices, contracts or relevant case law.

Methodically assemble all necessary supporting documents before sending. In the case of disputes concerning deductible expenses, provide complete supporting documentation, particularly concerning the disputed business expenses. The quality and completeness of your documentation will largely determine the outcome of your claim.

Recommended answer structure

Start by precisely identifying the contested rectification proposal, giving its reference number and date. Then set out your arguments point by point, using the same numbering as for each head of adjustment. Systematically attach supporting documents: invoices, contracts, certificates or applicable case law.

Conclude by explicitly requesting total or partial cancellation of the adjustments. Specify whether you are requesting a meeting with the inspector or the intervention of the departmental contact. A clear, well-documented argument significantly increases your chances of obtaining satisfaction.

Follow-up to your complaint

The tax authorities have a variable period of time in which to respond to your observations. It may abandon the adjustments altogether, maintain them in full or propose an intermediate solution. The response must be reasoned and must respond precisely to each of your arguments.

Administration’s response

After receiving your observations, the tax authorities must send you a reasoned response before any assessment. Although there is no strict legal deadline for the normal contradictory procedure, administrative practice shows an average delay of 30 to 60 days, depending on the complexity of the case and the arguments raised.

The tax authorities must respond to each of your arguments. Failure to respond on a specific point constitutes a procedural defect that may result in the tax reassessment in question being discharged. The response can take one of three forms: total abandonment of the reassessment (around 30% of cases, according to statistics), full maintenance of its position, or an intermediate solution with partial adjustments.

If the tax authorities maintain all or part of the adjustments, they will send you a reply to the taxpayer’s observations. This document must set out in detail the legal and factual reasons for maintaining the reassessment. At this stage, you still have several options open to you: request referral to the departmental tax commission for questions of fact, request the intervention of the departmental interlocutor provided for in article L10-0 AB of the LPF, or consider a tax settlement in cases where this is legally possible (notably for penalties).

The departmental interlocutor represents a valuable amicable recourse prior to collection. This in-house mediator examines your case independently and can propose conciliatory solutions. Referral to the mediator suspends deadlines and offers a final opportunity for resolution before legal action is taken.

Possible recourse

If you are still not satisfied with the administration’s response, you have a number of avenues of appeal open to you, according to a precise hierarchy. First of all, you can apply to the tax authorities for an amicable settlement, in particular a request for an ex gratia remission or for the penalties to be written off. This amicable approach may lead to a reduction in penalties.

For questions of fact (assessment of profits, reconstitution of sales, deductible expenses), you can request a referral to the departmental tax commission within 30 days of receiving the response to your observations. Article L59 of the LPF sets out the framework for this procedure, which allows for an adversarial examination by a joint body made up of representatives of the tax authorities and taxpayers.

Once the tax has been assessed, you have the right to lodge a complaint with the tax authorities until December 31 of the second year following assessment. This claim is a prerequisite to any referral to the courts. You may apply for a deferment of payment during this contentious phase, in accordance with article L277 of the LPF, provided you furnish sufficient guarantees.

If your claim is rejected in whole or in part, the last resort is to take legal action before the administrative court. You have two months from the date of notification of the rejection to bring your case before the administrative court. To maximize your chances of success, you need the assistance of a tax lawyer.

The importance of assistance from a tax lawyer

Challenging a tax reassessment proposal requires in-depth legal and tax expertise. A tax lawyer analyzes the legality of the procedure, identifies the flaws in the administrative argumentation and builds a solid defense. His intervention considerably increases your chances of obtaining tax relief.

A lawyer is familiar with the applicable case law and administrative practices, and can negotiate effectively with the auditor. He ensures that deadlines are met and that your tax returns are in the right form. In complex cases involving significant sums of money, his assistance becomes indispensable to safeguard your financial interests.

Optimize your chances of success with the authorities

Challenging a rectification proposal requires responsiveness, rigor and legal expertise. The 30-day deadline calls for immediate mobilization to analyze the case and build a solid argument. Every piece of evidence, every reference to case law and every procedural flaw can tip the outcome of the audit in your favor.

Don’t miss this opportunity to defend your rights during the contradictory phase. A well-executed challenge can result in the tax reassessments being dropped altogether, or in a substantial reduction in the sums claimed. The support of a tax law professional maximizes your chances of obtaining a favorable outcome and avoids irreversible procedural errors.