Cession d’une filiale intégrée et procédure collective

by Jérôme Delaurière and Charlotte Prest A new chapter has emerged concerning the 2008 theft by an HSBC employee of information on thousands of HSBC Private Bank customers and their accounts in Switzerland. The employee had communicated the data to the French prosecutor in Nice in early 2009. The stolen data included a list of names, account numbers, and addresses of 3,000 French residents who held Swiss bank accounts and who were suspected of tax evasion. In August 2009, the French Ministry for the Budget, which had received a copy of the list from the prosecutor, urged the listed taxpayers to regularize their affairs by December 31, 2009. The tax authorities used the list to identify possible tax evasion for those who did not regularize their affairs. The tax authorities raided the homes of some of the taxpayers named on the list. Article L16 B of the French Book of Tax Procedures (Livre des Procédures Fiscales) allows the tax authorities to carry out searches of an individual’s place of residence when there are suspicions of tax fraud, subject to an advance court order from a civil judge. To grant this authorization, the judge must render a decision based on the evidence provided of the likely existence of tax fraud. In this case, the HSBC list on which the taxpayer’s name was referenced was provided as the main evidence. Since the 2008 Ravon decision rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (ruling that raids by the French tax authorities were in breach of article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights) and the reform1 of article L16 B that followed, taxpayers may, a posteriori, appeal the court order allowing the raid. In practice, the new legal remedy now allows taxpayers to : dispute the validity of the order authorizing the search; and obtain the cancellation of the investigations implemented in violation of article L16 B of the Book of Tax Procedures. One of the 3,000 HSBC customers argued before the Paris Court of Appeal that HSBC’s list, which was a stolen document, was an unlawful document. Therefore, according to the taxpayer, the French tax authorities should not have presented the document to the judge of first instance, who issued the court order allowing a raid of his domicile on June 15, 2010. On February 8, 2011, the president of the Paris Court of Appeal agreed with the taxpayer’s position. The court held that because the data had been stolen, the origin of the evidence that was presented to the judge of first instance was unlawful. In addition, the communication of the data to the French tax authorities by the prosecutor of Nice in accordance with the provisions of article 101 of the Book of Tax Procedures did not make the data lawful. The court noted that the French tax authorities had received a copy of the data several months before the official communication was made by the prosecutor of Nice. As a result, the court canceled the search authorization order, considering that without the unlawfully obtained HSBC data, the evidence presented by the French tax authorities was not sufficient to constitute a presumption of tax fraud that would have allowed the raid to take place. In a decision rendered on April 7, 2010 (Cass. com. n° 09-15.122, DGFiP c/ C.), the Supreme Civil Court ruled that a judge should verify that the information provided by the French tax authorities has been obtained through lawful means. The Supreme Civil Court strengthened this position in a key decision dated January 7, 2011 (Cass. com. n° 09-14.316 and 09-14.667, Sté Philips), based on article 6 section 1 of the European Human Rights Convention and the duty of loyalty in the context of the search for evidence. In the decision the Supreme Civil Court emphasized the importance of the duty of loyalty in all contentious matters and held that: [I]f the economic considerations cannot be ignored by the judge, such considerations shall not distract the judge from his obligation to judge in accordance with the fundamental principles which govern the legitimacy of his action. The French tax authorities have appealed the decision rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal. However, based on the position of the Supreme Civil Court, it would be surprising if the Supreme Civil Court cancels the decision A possible adverse effect of this decision is that it may encourage the French tax authorities to increase their use of the new judicial tax investigation powers under the 2009 amended Finance Law (article L228 of the Book of Tax Procedures), which created a tax policing department. Those powers are governed by principles of penal law that are less strict about the use of unlawful evidence than the principles of civil law (which are applicable to the raids carried out under article L16 B). Although those powers are supposed to be used solely for complex tax fraud schemes involving the use of false documents, bank accounts in a tax haven, or entities located in a tax haven, a recent response from the Minister for Justice2 regarding tax expatriates implicitly confirms that the French tax authorities are likely to increase their use of the new judicial tax investigation powers. It will take some time before the delicate balance can be struck between the need to fight tax fraud and the need to protect taxpayers’ rights. Nonetheless, the Paris Court of Appeal decision is a clear victory for the duty of loyalty and the right to a fair trial, which are as important (if not more so) than the need to combat tax fraud. ◆ ♦ Jérôme Delaurière and Charlotte Prest are lawyers with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in Paris 

Paru dans la "Revue de DROIT FISCAL" du 7 OCTOBRE 2010 par Jérôme DELAURIÈRE, avocat associé, Gibson Dunn et Charlotte PREST, avocat, Gibson Dunn La jurisprudence élaborée par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme relativement à la conformité de la procédure de visites et de saisies domiciliaires (LPF, art. L. 16 B) à l'article 6, § de la Convention EDH incite à s'interroger sur la conventionnalité, au regard des mêmes dispositions, du droit d'enquête TVA (LPF, art. L. 80 F), compte tenu des similitudes qui existent entre ces deux procédures. 1. Introduction 1- À l'occasion de plusieurs arrêts de principe 1 , la Cour euro­péenne des droits de l'homme (ci-après « Cour européenne ») a condamné le droit de visite prévu à l'article L. 16 B du LPF au motif que ce dispositif violait le droit au recours effectif prévu à l'article 6, § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (ci-après « Convention EDH »). Cette jurisprudence a été abondamment commentée 2 et a obligé le législateur à rapidement réagir. C'est ainsi que les contribuables faisant l'objet d'une visite domiciliaire bénéfi­cient désormais d'un recours de plein contentieux devant le premier président de cour d'appel territorialement compétent. Ce recours permet aux contribuables de contester tant (i) la validité de l'ordon­nance ayant autorisé la visite domiciliaire que (ii) les modalités de réalisation de cette visite 3 . Bien que rendue en matière fiscale, la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne a également conduit le législateur à réformer les disposi­tions législatives relatives au droit de visite dans de nombreux autres domaines du droit 4 , comme cela avait été anticipé par le doyen Hatoux 5 . De fait, le régime des visites domiciliaires instauré en ma­tière fiscale par l'article 94 de la loi n° 84-1208 du 29 décembre 1984 a inspiré de nombreuses procédures équivalentes dans d'autres do­maines du droit. La contagion engendrée par l'arrêt Rayon semble toutefois s'être arrêtée au seul domaine des visites domiciliaires stricto sensu. En par­ticulier, le législateur n'a pas jugé utile de réformer les dispositions des articles L. 80 F et suivants du LPF, communément désignées sous le nom de « droit d'enquête TVA » 6 (ci-après le « droit d'enquête »). L'analyse des travaux parlementaires ayant donné lieu à l'adoption de la réforme des dispositions de l'article L. 16 B du LPF montre que la question de la compatibilité des dispositions des articles L. 80 F et suivants du LPF avec la jurisprudence Rayon n'a pas été évoquée lors des débats 7 . Faut-il y voir la confirmation implicite de la conventio­nalité du droit d'enquête, version « light » de la visite domiciliaire ? Dans le contexte européen de renforcement de la protection des libertés individuelles des contribuables illustré par la jurisprudence Rayon, il nous semble que la réponse à cette question ne va pas de soi 8 . De fait, l'exercice du droit d'enquête qui, contrairement aux visites domiciliaires, est faiblement encadré par les textes, présente de nom­breuses similitudes avec la procédure de l'article L. 16 B du LPF. La question de la conventionalité du droit d'enquête ne présente pas seulement un intérêt théorique. De nombreuses vérifications de comptabilité sont précédées de l'exercice d'un ou de plusieurs droits d'enquête et les propositions de rectification qui s'en suivent sont souvent motivées, au moins en partie, par les informations collectées et les auditions réalisées lors de ces enquêtes 9 . Les informations col­lectées peuvent également motiver, le cas échéant, un dépôt de plainte pour fraude fiscale. Par ailleurs, l'exercice du droit d'enquête permet aux services fiscaux, le cas échéant, de collecter des informations sur des tiers qui se verront opposer ces renseignements au cours d'une vérification de comptabilité les concernant (lesdits tiers pouvant alors difficilement contester les modalités de réalisation de cette en­quête et des auditions réalisées). L'administration fiscale utilise régu­lièrement les informations obtenues lors d'enquêtes TVA pour motiver des demandes de visites domiciliaires auprès du juge des libertés et de la détention. Enfin, la réalisation d'une enquête TVA permet la mise en oeuvre de la procédure de flagrance. L'administration fiscale utilise donc fréquemment le droit d'en­quête car il s'agit d'une procédure au formalisme allégé, très simple à mettre en oeuvre et peu risquée au plan juridique, par opposition aux visites domiciliaires qui font l'objet de nombreux recours engagés par les contribuables qui contestent désormais fréquemment leur vali­dité. En outre, jusqu'à une période récente 11 et de manière para­doxale, le droit d'enquête offrait un avantage clé par rapport à la procédure de visite domiciliaire, à savoir celui de pouvoir auditionner les personnes présentes. La question de la compatibilité du droit d'enquête avec la Conven­tion EDH mérite donc d'être analysée  . À cet effet, nous rappelle­rons brièvement les grands principes dégagés par la jurisprudence européenne en matière de respect du droit au domicile (1). Nous analyserons ensuite la conventionalité du droit d'enquête au regard de cette jurisprudence (2).

December 7, 2010 During the course of the ongoing debates on the Finance Bill for 2011, the French Senate has recently adopted a new provision, resulting from two amendments adopted on November 18 and 19, 2010 respectively, which significantly extends the scope of the French thin capitalization rules. The new provision is presented as an anti-abuse provision with a view to preventing companies of the same group from circumventing the thin capitalization rules by securing bank loans via guarantees provided by a related company of the group. Unfortunately, the scope of the provision is very broad and is likely to capture many situations which are not abusive. Currently, the French thin capitalization rules, codified under Article 212 of the French Tax Code, only limit the deductibility of interest accrued on a related-party debt. On the other hand, these rules do not restrict the deductibility of interest accrued on loans granted by independent third parties such as financial institutions, notwithstanding the fact that such loans are guaranteed by a related party. In simplified terms, a related party for the purposes of the above rules is a person who (i) holds directly or indirectly the majority of the share capital of the borrower, or (ii) is held by the borrower under the same conditions, or (iii) is held under the same conditions by a third party than the borrower. The amendments would bring interest paid to independent third parties (including bank loans) within the scope of the French thin capitalization rules, if and when such loans are secured by a related party. Security interests falling within the scope of this new rule would include personal security interests (personal guarantees, first demand guarantees, or even comfort letters) as well as security interests in rem (pledges over the shares of the borrower, collaterals, mortgages, trusts or privileges). As a softening measure, the following situations are excluded from the scope of this new provision if: (i) the guarantee is given in the context of bonds issued within the framework of a public offer; (ii) the guarantee is a mere pledge over the shares of the borrowing company; (iii) the guarantee is given in the context of the refinancing of an existing debt which is required as a result of a change of control of the borrower. However, the above exceptions, which are very limited and are unlikely to provide relief in many situations, will result in an increase in the debt financing costs of French companies. Moreover, the new provision will also impact existing bank loans insofar as no grandfather clause has been provided. If the amendments as currently drafted are passed by the French Parliament by the end of December 2010, they would apply to fiscal years ending as from January 1, 2011, which, for companies having their fiscal year lined up with the civil year, would mean the new rules will come into effect as from next year.