Selection of administrative court rulings

When a company acquires fixed assets on the dissolution without liquidation of a company of which it has acquired all the shares, the cost price of these fixed assets, used to determine the basis of assessment for property tax on built-up properties and the business property tax, is not the original value of the fixed assets in the accounts of the company whose assets were transferred, which had constituted a cost price for that company, but the actual value recorded by the company receiving the fixed assets, which is its own original value. Accordingly, the rental value of the real estate at issue must be determined by reference to the actual value recorded by the applicant company at the time of the universal transfer of F...'s assets and liabilities, which took effect on January 1, 2010. In addition, pursuant to the provisions of article 1518 B of the CGI, the rental value of these fixed assets may not be less than four-fifths of the value used for 2009. In the absence of accounting documents establishing the value of the disputed fixed assets at the time of the transfer of all assets and liabilities, which only the applicant is in a position to provide, the applicant company cannot be deemed to have established the existence of overtaxation in respect of these assets. In these circumstances, the applicant has not established that the taxes at issue are tainted by errors in the assessment of the rental value of the industrial establishment located in the commune of La Capelle.

The aeronautical lighting located on the runways of an airport, which is an industrial establishment within the meaning of article 1499 of the CGI, is specifically adapted to the air transport activity likely to be carried out there. The applicant company is therefore entitled to argue that the cost price of this equipment should not be included in the basis of assessment for the Beauvais-Tillé airport property tax. On the other hand, neither the fences designed to prevent access to the site occupied by the airport, nor the automatic detection security gates constitute equipment specifically adapted to the air transport activity carried out in this establishment, however sophisticated they may be. The applicant therefore has no grounds for claiming that the cost price of this equipment should not be included in the basis of assessment for property tax.

The results of the investigation show that, while the respective situations of the term of comparison and the building to be appraised are equivalent in that they serve the same highly-touristy sites in the capital, the location of the hotel in question (opposite the Tuileries) is slightly more favorable than that of the standard premises (located in a street adjacent to the Avenue des Champs Elysées, but with no direct view of a tourist site). Although the applicant company considers that the hotel in question requires major renovation, it does not provide any evidence of this, despite the fact that its four-star rating and the fact that it has a spa, an indoor swimming pool and parking spaces in addition to and as part of its direct operation, give the property complex the quality of a prestigious building. While the maintenance condition of standard premises no. 275 is noted in the minutes as «good», the differences in geographical characteristics and general condition will be correctly appreciated by setting the increase coefficient at 25 %. The comparative standard premises proposed by the Administration should therefore be retained, and the applicant should be referred back to the Administration to calculate the property taxes payable by her for 2022 and 2023 on the basis of the rate for this premises, with an adjustment of 25 %.

It follows from the investigation that fixed assets 500343 «Repainting building», 500370 «Repainting east facade», 503874 «Maillet painting direc/info/ctrl office», 503873 «Maillet painting gd hall», 503575 «Repainting entrance+corridor walls+doors» correspond to repair work on various surfaces involving their preparation and the application of two coats of paint or glass cloth. Under these conditions, the work can be considered, on the basis of the evidence provided, as repair work that did not result in any improvements. These fixed assets must therefore be excluded from the basis of assessment for the property tax on built-up properties to which the applicant company is liable for 2020 and 2021.

The applicant company contests the valuation of the parking lots in dispute for the purpose of calculating the revised rental value. It is requesting that a weighting coefficient of 0.2 be applied to the traffic lanes, in application of article 324 Z of Appendix III to the CGI, to take account of their use value, which it considers to be lower than that of the parking spaces. However, the applicant does not dispute that the traffic lanes within the park are essential for access to the parking spaces. Consequently, it does not seriously contest the weighting of 1 correctly applied by the tax authorities to the traffic lanes within the parking area. Consequently, the conclusions of the request to this effect must be rejected.

While it is undisputed that sprinkler systems, i.e. fire-fighting installations, are required by law and essential to industrial activity, these circumstances alone are not sufficient to exclude such systems from the calculation of the basis of assessment for property tax, in the absence of proof that they are specifically adapted to the activity carried out by the taxpayer company. It is clear from the invoices produced by the applicant company and the explanations provided by the tax authorities that the sprinkler systems concerned by the exemption request are all located in administrative premises, and are therefore not specifically adapted to the company's business. On the other hand, the general tank covered by invoice no. 2007002106 dated December 23, 2007 should be considered as specifically adapted to supply the entire site, and should therefore be excluded from the tax base. Furthermore, it is clear from the investigation that only the fixed assets covered by invoices no. 1998000890 issued on April 1, 1998 for an amount of 422.28 euros and no. 2001001340 issued on August 20, 2001 for an amount of 1,592.03 euros relate to industrial activity and constitute special fittings for the exercise of this activity. As a result, the change in the tax base should be modified only to this extent.