Selection of administrative court rulings

The applicant's two houses are made of stone and have tiled roofs, ensuring satisfactory living conditions. Although some of the tiles have become porous over time, the applicant recently replaced the rest of them, and although a beam in the roof structure of one of the houses in question is «worm-eaten» and has been reinforced with temporary supports where it is broken, this circumstance has been taken into account in the maintenance coefficient provided for in Article 324 Q of Appendix III to the CGI applied by the Administration, without, however, the investigation finding that it would call into question the satisfactory habitability of the main parts of these houses. Furthermore, according to the applicant's H1 statements, one of the houses in dispute has five rooms, including a dining room or other reception room, and the other house has seven rooms, three of which are used as dining rooms or other reception rooms. The investigation did not reveal that the layout of the main part of these houses was merely passable rather than rational. Moreover, the applicant essentially only complained to the Administration about the inconvenience of access to the cellar. Finally, the photographs produced by the applicant show stone houses that are generally in good rather than ordinary condition, notwithstanding their poor state of repair and although the plasterwork on some of the facades is damaged. In these circumstances, the characteristics of the applicant's houses are closer to those of the reference premises in category 5M in the municipality of Rivière-les-Fosses than to those of the reference premises in category 6.

It follows from the investigation, and is not seriously disputed, that the premises owned by the applicant company have only undergone renovation work to convert them from commercial premises into residential premises, namely two apartments. These premises are therefore not the result of new construction, reconstruction, or an addition to the building. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to claim the two-year exemption provided for in Article 1383 of the CGI and, therefore, to relief from the disputed contributions that would correspond to such an exemption.

The documents in the file show that the premises used to manufacture the «Xblocs» for the first phase of the «Calais Port 2015» project consist of a large factory building in which the «Xblocs» are manufactured and a concrete plant adjacent to this building, which is used to pour the concrete needed to manufacture the «Xblocs .» Even though this complex is built on a construction site, it must be regarded as being permanently fixed to the ground for the duration of the construction project and as constituting a masonry structure that is a genuine building for the duration of the construction project carried out by the group of companies applying for the permit and, therefore, subject to property tax on built properties in accordance with the provisions of Article 1381 of the CGI. The fact that this industrial facility was built without a building permit and that no development tax is due has no bearing on the principle of its liability for this tax. On the other hand, it appears from the documents in the file that the concrete plant adjacent to the factory building, given the size of the main facility, has a volume commensurate with the industrial activity of manufacturing «Xblocs» carried out there and must be regarded as participating directly in the industrial activity of the establishment and as being separable from the latter. In these circumstances, the concrete plant falls within the scope of the exemption from property tax on built properties provided for in the provisions of Article 1382(11) of the General Tax Code.

It follows from the investigation and is not disputed that the premises belonging to the applicant SCI are of an industrial nature within the meaning of Article 1500 of the CGI. In refusing to value the real estate property of which it became the owner on November 30, 2006, using the accounting method provided for in Article 1499 of the CGI, the Service argues that the valuation of premises must necessarily be carried out in accordance with the tax regime applicable on the date of the event giving rise to the property tax. As the SCI was subject to the property income tax regime when it purchased the property on November 30, 2006, due to its late option for corporate income tax on June 26, 2007, the Service argues that the rental value of the property must be assessed using the method provided for in Article 1498 of the CGI, as the subsequent change in the corporate tax regime has no impact on the previous valuation of the property. However, it follows from the provisions of II of 1° of Article 1500 of the CGI that the accounting method is implemented under the two sole conditions that the owner of the premises is subject to the reporting obligations defined in Article 53 A of the same Code and that these industrial fixed assets appear on the assets side of its balance sheet, conditions which were met by the company for the years in dispute. Therefore, the Service was wrong to base its decision on the tax regime applicable on the date of the event giving rise to the property tax and to refuse to take into account the subsequent change in the tax regime.

The tax authorities classified the disputed grain storage facilities, consisting mainly of eight vertical silos occupying approximately 2,040 m², in category 1 of subgroup X (EXC1). The applicant company disputes this classification and argues that these facilities should be classified in category 5 of subgroup III (DEP5). It does not appear from the investigation, and in particular from the photograph produced, that the facilities in question, given their characteristics, purpose, and use, have exceptional characteristics that would make it impossible to classify them in any of the categories of the sub-group «storage facilities and parking lots,» particularly since they are intended and used for the storage of grain. Furthermore, by merely arguing that the facilities consist of vertical silos with unusual characteristics, the Administration does not seriously contest their classification in category 5: «specific storage facilities.» Therefore, the applicant company is justified in requesting that the facilities in question be classified in category DEP5.

The applicant company requests the exclusion from the property tax base of fixed assets listed as «automatic workshop door» for the sum of €4,421.02, «store door» for the sum of €4,421.02, and «rapid-opening door» for the sum of €5,030.82. It appears from the investigation, in particular from the invoices produced and the explanations provided by the interested party, which are not seriously contested by the tax authorities, that this equipment meets the definition of exempt assets under Article 1382(11) of the General Tax Code. In these circumstances, the applicant is justified in requesting that the cost price of these fixed assets be excluded from the taxable base.