Selection of administrative court rulings

To contest the 1.3 location coefficient, the applicant company argues that the location of the plots in question alongside the A6 freeway exposes it particularly to air and noise pollution, as shown by the Airparif map in the file. However, such a circumstance has no bearing on the assessment made by the Commission départementale des valeurs locatives, given that these plots are used for warehousing, storage and parking, and are not intended for residential or customer use, and that their proximity to major roads is an advantage in view of the nature of the activity carried out on these plots. It is also clear from the plans provided that the plots are located close to two stations served by a new tram-train line. In addition, it is clear from the documents in the file that the plots in question are located within an economic activity zone that has benefited from an upgrade of its networks and facilities, likely to offer services to the companies located on the zone. While the company contests the existence of crèches, public canteens and certain public services, it does not contest that the site has been upgraded or that private catering and other business services are available.

With regard to the combined provisions of articles 324 G, 324 H and 324 O of Appendix III to the CGI, the applicants dispute the 3rd category classification of their house and swimming pool, which they feel should be classified in lower categories: categories 5 to 7 in terms of the architectural character of the building and categories 4 or 5 in terms of the quality of the construction, citing the dilapidated appearance of the building and the absence of a crawl space. However, on the one hand, it is clear from the property valuation sheet that the tax authorities have chosen category 4 and not category 3. Secondly, it is clear from the photographs in the file that the exterior walls of the house have not been plastered, so the breeze-block exterior is provisional and, even with the alleged absence of a crawl space, does not demonstrate that the category 4 classification would be erroneous.

The applicant company operates as a wholesale distributor of frozen foods, in premises covering an area of 2,600 m². It is clear from the investigation that the company has 554 m² of dock space on these premises, in the so-called "positive cold" zone at 0°C, and a 1,284 m² freezing chamber, in the so-called "negative cold" zone at -20°C, for the needs of its business, The Administration specifies, without being contradicted, that this freezing chamber is controlled from a room housing the computerized, centralized and automated machinery, and that the cost price of the components of these refrigeration systems amounts to 467,592 euros. It is therefore clear that these cold production facilities, which are essential to the applicant's business as a distributor of frozen food products, must be considered as significant technical resources in terms of their market value. Furthermore, in view of the indispensable nature of the cold rooms for the applicant's business and the surface area occupied by these installations, which represent more than half of the total surface area of the premises, they must also be considered as having a preponderant role in the company's business. Under these conditions, the tax authorities were able to qualify the establishment operated by the applicant company as an industrial establishment within the meaning of article 1499 of the CGI, without committing an error of assessment.

In order to contest the surface area used by the Service to calculate the business property tax for the years in dispute, the applicant company maintains that only 57,570 m² of the 137,860 m² of the total surface area of the real estate complex it owns is used for its industrial activity, the remaining surface area not supporting any construction and being essentially used for green spaces. However, the company has only provided an undated aerial photograph, which does not show that the additional 80,290 m² of land that was included in the tax base in dispute was not directly necessary for its business activity. Under these conditions, the applicant company has no grounds for claiming that the Service wrongly included these areas in the surface area used to calculate the rental value on which it was assessed for business property tax.

While the tax authorities point out that the towns of Echirolles and Illkirch are not similar in economic terms or population size, they are both located on the outskirts of a major urban area, Grenoble and Strasbourg respectively, and are part of urban areas with similar economic situations. In addition, the population sizes of the two metropolises are similar. Given the nature of the establishments in question (hypermarkets), these factors make the geographical areas in which they are located comparable, even though the two towns concerned are far apart. Furthermore, it is clear from the investigation that the premises type no. 4 listed in the "ME" report for the Illkirch commune, proposed by the applicant company, corresponds to a hypermarket with an actual surface area of 55,880 m² and a weighted surface area of 15,757 m². It is undisputed that this term of comparison also has characteristics similar to those of the establishment to be appraised, in particular its location in a shopping center. As a result, standard premises no. 4 in the "ME" report for the Illkirch municipality constitutes a relevant term of comparison.

The applicant company maintains that the seasonal nature of its business, which implies little use of certain technical equipment, gives the activity a non-industrial character. However, while the majority of the company's storage capacity consists of vertical silos, made up of cells whose loading necessarily involves the use of major handling equipment, and whose operation is subject to strict fire and explosion risk prevention regulations, which make it necessary to ensure, This criterion of frequency of use of the technical means cannot be considered as sufficient in itself to assess whether or not these means are preponderant in the exercise of the applicant company's activity. Moreover, while the loading of these silos is seasonal, since it takes place at harvest time, their unloading takes place frequently and requires material resources which, although less important than during the filling phases, notably involve loading bushels. Under these conditions, the applicant company must be considered to have used, in the course of its business, technical resources that were not only substantial, but also played a predominant role in its operating process. It follows that the tax authorities were justified in considering that this company was carrying on an industrial activity within the meaning and for the application of the provisions of article 1499 of the CGI.