EIs it legitimate for the tax administration to reveal to a husband that he is being cheated on, and to tell him the names and addresses of the lovers, on the grounds that the latter have provided the wife with sums of money likely to to modify the taxation of the tax household? This is the question posed by the following case.
From 2008, Mme Mr. In 2014, a year before dying, he offered her 80,000 euros, from the sale of land, as promised for a long time. His children filed a complaint for abuse of weakness.
The police carry out a search at M’s houseme X. She seizes jewelry, cash (383,500 euros in plastic bags); but also, in the safe of his bank, gold coins and ingots. Placed in police custody, their owner explains that these are gifts, offered by five wealthy men, whom she has been seeing for a long time. So that she escapes the accusation of abuse of weakness, her lawyer, appointed by the court, describes her as« escort-girl ». She will be acquitted in 2021, without the prosecution or the heirs appealing.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers Funds diverted by scammers are supposed to be declared to the tax authorities
Add to your selections
But the public prosecutor communicates, as he has the duty, under article L. 101 of the Book of Tax Procedures (LPF), the elements which make him presume the existence of tax fraud, to the director departmental finance.
Escort-girl
In view of the criminal documents, an auditor considers that Mme * taxes), then VAT (articles L66 of the LPF). Finally, it applies a penalty of 80% for occult activity (article 1728 of the general tax code).
On November 30, 2017, she sent the couple a very detailed rectification proposal (31 pages). The husband discovers the frequency and locations of his wife’s meetings, the auditor having insisted on deducting travel expenses, according to the mileage scale in force. He takes note of elements of the criminal file.
Believing that the administration violated the professional secrecy to which it is bound, he claims 100,000 euros in damages for moral harm. He loses, the administrative courts considering that the secret is only enforceable against third parties; or, married people “subject to common taxation on the income received by each of them cannot be considered as third parties towards each other”.
You have 37.49% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
