This fact the judgment also fixed the date limit for action

The victims of a reminder of tax taxpayers may claim compensation when it is the result of a Board wrong or insufficient. But when this action for damages may be brought The response also determines the time to act. It was generally accepted by the professionals of the taxes that damage is established in the implementation of the tax collection. Some taxpayers even chose to wait until their injury is definitely certain to seek redress. It is therefore at the end of the tax dispute that they have committed the responsibility of the "authors" of the damage.

November 16, 2006, the Court of appeal of Paris gave wrong these laggards. It held that an action brought by a company is prescribed once it was introduced more than ten years (period of prescription in force in this case) after the notification of remedies. Confirming several decisions of the tribunal de commerce of Paris, this decision sets the date from which the taxpayer may engage the liability of providers of their fiscal woes. This fact, the judgment also fixed the date limit for action.

The judgment of the Court of appeal of Paris is a slag of the so-called case "turbo funds". For memory, the turbo funds were a means to increase tax credits with to reduce the tax owed by the companies. This adjustment of tax credits was prescribed by a statement of the tax administration of January 13, 1983. Its objective was to ensure equality between the unitholders of the mutual fund (FCP). Associated with a mechanism to avoid the imposition of income to which these credits were attached, the proliferation of tax credits has been considered an abuse of right by the Directorate General of taxes.

The success and effectiveness of these turbo funds were like their creation, their sale and their use have been described as "tax case of the century". Conducted initially on the basis of abuse of rights, the challenge to the tax authorities of the benefits of these turbo Fund was continued on other legal bases after the opinion of the Council of State on April 8, 1998. That is, if the procedure and the tax proceedings were long and erratic.

The judgment of the Court of appeal of Paris of November 16, 2006 ruled on the case of a major French company have used turbo funds offered by several banks and financial institutions. It has been the subject, in 1991, a notification of remedies against the use of adjusted tax credits. This notification of remedies was followed by a notice of recovery issued in 1993. Considering that, by these reminders of tax and penalties, it suffered damage, the company has assigned, in 2003, the managers and Trustees of the Fund. In holding that it should assign less than ten years after the notification of remedies, the Court of appeal of Paris said prescribed action of the company.

Adventurous products

The Court of appeal of Paris was established, therefore the starting point of the time seeking relief, to receipt of the notification of remedies (now called rectification proposal). In so doing, it has deprived the complainant of a real and substantial opportunity for compensation. But this judgment of 16 November 2006 of the Court of appeal of Paris has respected the principle enunciated by the Court of cassation.

According to this principle when a party knows or can objectively know of the existence of prejudice, it is able to seek redress. For the judge, this knowledge is, in this area, established as soon as the proposal for rectification. The Court of cassation had already considered (December 13, 2005 1st Civil Chamber judgment) that the notification of remedies was sufficient information for the taxpayer put in question the responsibility of a notary. This information is also the starting point of the limitation period, while the tax relief is ongoing and that its fate may be uncertain.

Ultimately, the Court of appeal of Paris replied to the question of when and until when restated taxpayers can assert their grievances against those who advised them and sold the adventurous products.