Du refus administratif de déduction de l’assiette de l’impôt sur le revenu des obligations alimentaires naturelles, ou pour l’organisation d’un appui scientifique à la décision politique

Under Article 156.II.2 of the French Tax Code, introduced by the Budget Bill of 1959, tax authorities, approved by the Conseil d'État (French administrative supreme court), refuse to deduct, from the personal income tax base, alimonies whose payment is not required by Articles 205 to 211 of the French Civil Code. Such an interpretation creates social misery and glaring injustice. Since 1960, there have been around 50 official questions to the Government by French members of Parliament on the subject, often emphasizing the injustice of the situation. Yet, this clause of the French Tax Code should be interpreted differently. Indeed, Civil Law provides that natural maintenance obligations become civil ones when they are acknowledged (the payment implying an acknowledgment). Therefore, once they are acknowledged, they should be deducted. In reality, the provision was originally more or less imposed on Parliament, in the context of the last huge reform of personal income tax law, which was largely approved in principle. The Parliament did not trust the tax administration with this provision however, so the relevant commission removed it, but the Government required that this provision would be voted in alongside the entire law, and guaranteed that the administration would interpret it in a way which would be highly advantageous for taxpayers, reaching beyond the cases that are our concern here. Yet, not only did the administration act in a directly contradictory way to this, it has also misinformed members of Parliament, in particular by telling them that reform would not be technically possible. Meanwhile, many taxpayers, sometimes in wretched situations, were unjustly affected and were pressured into not helping their dependents, and into relying on social welfare instead, which increased public spending. This is therefore a legal tragedy since the rule applied by tax authorities is against material and moral interests of taxpayers and against those of society. Parliament should assert its rights in this matter and change the law so that what has always been its will is applied. Other fiscal measures in support of familial or intergenerational solidarity could also be considered. More generally, the fact that such an illegitimate power could have been wielded by the tax administration for around 60 years calls for a better legal and scientific information of members of Parliament.