Life insurance, in the collimator of Bercy on behalf of the abusive and fraudulent montages ...
According to Bercy, the subscription of a life insurance contract and an in fine loan in order to repatriate, duty-free, undeclared foreign assets, constitutes proven fraud.
We know that taxpayers whose tax domicile is in France, must declare open accounts, used or closed in financial institutions outside France, declare the income tax that generated by the assets on these accounts, and understand them in the base of the solidarity tax on fortune.
The new published scheme is as follows: a taxpayer taxably tax in France holds assets abroad. These assets have not been declared in France to the income tax or the ISF. This taxpayer has subscribed to an organization established outside France a life insurance contract and an in fine loan. Its refund is guaranteed by the occult assets. The amount lent under the in fine loan is placed on the life insurance contract. The subscriber can then dispose of the amounts invested by soliciting the total or partial redemption of the contract. At the end of the loan, the reimbursement of the borrowed capital is carried out by the transfer to the undeclared foreign asset lender.
Thus by this assembly the taxpayer has in France of sums equivalent to those of undeclared assets, while having benefited from the tax system of life insurance.
Justified and confirmed fears
Regardless of any judgment on the truly fraudulent or not, intentional or not, the operations concerned, force is still to note that Bercy, by this system put in place allegedly in order to warn the taxpayers, consequently in a didactic approach, in order to of so-called "enlighten" the taxpayers, rather reign the uncertainty, the fear and fear of enhancements, with the penalties for deliberate failures, as well as, as in this case, the report of the amounts concerned The ISF, all with a fixed fine up to € 10,000, or a proportional fine for the illegal repatriation of money from abroad, without the taxpayer could not see in advance. profiling the maneuver, since the tax administration deliberately chooses to publish only these fraudulent schemes, without further clarifying how much it is to publish, moreover, or until it Ate ...
Without the date of arrest of these publications, each taxpayer locked up, deliberately or against his will, in a tax transaction a so much complex, therefore, continuously above his head, a "sword of Damocles", for lack of the Bercy's services, not to specify or clarify his thoughts now.
It even becomes legitimate to ask what the legal opposability of a new publication would now be on a new assembly, against taxpayers who, without knowing it, having ever been alerted or warned before the facts incriminated, would have acted in the same meaning that a case deemed "fraudulent and abusive" then by the experts of Bercy?
It is not very certain precisely, that the tax administration can then avail a posteriori, of situations judged fraudulent and abusive posteriori, by comparison with a situation thus analyzed a priori, and not yet published at the time of the reproached facts. !
This amounts to saying, in short, that "the thing is a bit easy; Too much ... "(For tax officers), if they are constantly changing and at their discretion, the" rules of the game ", if so that we can talk about a game ...
In addition, the fact for the ministry concerned, to have notified on April 10 on its site, that "other examples of fraudulent schemes" would be added later to the list of 17, without the establishment of a Accurate calendar of these publications, and without further details on its part, is not, legally legally, to justify a posteriori, future "formal positions" on the part of the taxigation: indeed, it can not be questioned , there, a "blank check" that taxpayers would have signed at their tax administration!
إرسال تعليق