Selection of administrative court rulings

With regard to the "social premises", which it is claimed should be assigned a weighting coefficient of 0.5, and which are areas reserved for the well-being of employees outside their working hours, the fact that they are not workspaces does not mean that the value of this area as a whole is reduced in relation to the main use of the office premises. Moreover, in the absence of precise and concrete evidence put forward by the applicant company, these areas, which are located on the first floor of the building in question, which houses five floors of office space, cannot be considered to have a reduced use value in relation to the main purpose of the premises. In the absence of any precise and concrete information, particularly concerning those located on the second basement level, it does not appear from the investigation that the surface areas of the corridors, emergency exits, sanitary facilities and checkrooms have a reduced utilization value in relation to the main use of the premises, particularly as they are located on levels where work spaces are located and used by employees, as shown by the plans submitted by the applicant, or in spaces which it is undisputed are not subject to any weighting calculations. It follows from all the foregoing, and without the company being able to usefully rely on the concept of "net usable area" set out in the Charte de l'expertise en immobilier for 2017, that, in the circumstances of the present case, the areas of "social premises", corridors and emergency exits, sanitary facilities and changing rooms in the disputed building cannot be considered as having a reduced use value in relation to the main use of the premises for office purposes.

With regard to the "social premises", which it is claimed should be assigned a weighting coefficient of 0.5, and which are areas reserved for the well-being of employees outside their working hours, the fact that they are not workspaces does not mean that the value of this area as a whole is reduced in relation to the main use of the office premises. Moreover, in the absence of precise and concrete evidence put forward by the applicant company, these areas, which are located on the first floor of the building in question, which houses five floors of office space, cannot be considered to have a reduced use value in relation to the main purpose of the premises. In the absence of any precise and concrete information, particularly concerning those located on the second basement level, it does not appear from the investigation that the surface areas of the corridors, emergency exits, sanitary facilities and checkrooms have a reduced utilization value in relation to the main use of the premises, particularly as they are located on levels where work spaces are located and used by employees, as shown by the plans submitted by the applicant, or in spaces which it is undisputed are not subject to any weighting calculations. It follows from all the foregoing, and without the company being able to usefully rely on the concept of "net usable area" set out in the Charte de l'expertise en immobilier for 2017, that, in the circumstances of the present case, the areas of "social premises", corridors and emergency exits, sanitary facilities and changing rooms in the disputed building cannot be considered as having a reduced use value in relation to the main use of the premises for office purposes.

On June 17, 2015, the applicant company obtained a demolition permit and a building permit for the renovation of an office building in Issy-les-Moulineaux. The project involved, on the one hand, the demolition of a staircase and the removal of facades and, on the other, the extension and raising of the building. The work was completed on July 19, 2017. Although the investigation showed that the shell of the building had been affected, in particular by the reinforcement of the foundations, the photographs attached to the bailiff's reports of December 17, 2015 and December 21, 2016 showed that the structure, in particular the external walls and levels, had been preserved, so that the building, which was not unfit for any use, had not lost its character as a built property. Consequently, the tax authorities did not disregard the provisions of article 1380 of the CGI (French General Tax Code) in assessing the building for property tax on built-up properties.

Following the completion of the works on July 19, 2017, the applicant company sent the 6660-REV declaration relating to new constructions to the tax authorities on August 21, 2017. It is common ground that this declaration was signed by a person lacking the capacity to represent the company. However, on the one hand, the tax authorities cannot rely on this irregularity, which only the applicant is likely to raise. On the other hand, and in any event, the company resubmitted the declaration, signed by its representative, on December 19, 2019. This declaration, duly filed within the claim period, had the effect of regularizing its situation and thus entitling it to the benefit of the exemption provided for in article 1383 of the CGI. As a result, the applicant company is entitled to request a reduction in the property tax assessments to which it was subject for 2018 and 2019 to the extent resulting from the exemption for new constructions and additions to constructions. In addition, to contest the assessment of the rental value of the company restaurant under the "MAG4" category, which corresponds to superstores, the applicant company maintains that its main surface area is less than 400 m². According to the tax investigation, the company restaurant covers a total surface area of 690 m², of which 273 m² is the main surface area and 417 m² the secondary surface area. Although the tax authorities claim that the usable surface area of the company restaurant is greater than 400 m², it follows from the very terms of the aforementioned article 310 Q that only the main surface area should be taken into account when classifying a building in the "MAG4" category. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to claim that the tax authorities wrongly assessed the company restaurant under the "MAG4" category, and to request that the "MAG2" category rate be applied to it, which corresponds to shops without direct access to the street.

The applicant company argues that the real estate complex in question was subject to demolition-reconstruction work on January 1, 2020, and could not, because of the impossibility of using the building at that date, be classified in category "BUR1" (old fixtures and fittings) or "BUR2" (office premises with recent fixtures and fittings), but only in category "DEP2" (open warehouse). However, it is common ground that the applicant company did not inform the tax authorities of any change of use of the building in question in accordance with the provisions of article 1406 I of the CGI. Furthermore, the fact that the building in question was unusable on January 1, 2020 does not imply that it should be classified as a "DEP2" (covered warehouse) instead of a "BUR1" or "BUR2". Finally, it is not clear from the investigation that the building in dispute was made available for warehouse use during the period of the works, which were still in progress on January 1, 2020.

Il résulte de l’instruction que la valeur locative du premier bien immobilier en litige a été déterminée par le service par comparaison avec le local-type n° 3 du procès-verbal ME de la commune de Clichy-la-Garenne, d’une superficie pondérée de 2 754 m². Si la société requérante propose de lui substituer le local-type n° 88 du procès-verbal C de la commune de Nanterre au motif que la taille des bureaux est équivalente à ses locaux, il résulte toutefois de l’instruction que ce local-type est utilisé par l’office national des anciens combattants et victimes de guerre et ne peut donc être économiquement comparé aux bureaux en litige loués à des sociétés privées. Pour arrêter la valeur locative du second bien immobilier en litige, l’Administration fiscale a retenu comme terme de comparaison le local-type n° 50 du procès-verbal C de la commune de Gennevilliers correspondant à un local de stockage, dont le tarif pondéré s’élève à 9,30 euros le m². Si la requérante soutient que le local-type n° 64 du procès-verbal C de la commune de Clichy présente davantage de similarité avec ses locaux, notamment par leur proximité géographique, il résulte toutefois de l’instruction que ce local-type a été détruit en 1979. Dans ces conditions, la société n’est pas fondée à demander qu’il soit retenu comme terme de comparaison.