Question 22485 — overseas

Summary

Mr. Gabriel Serville draws the attention of the Minister of Action and Public Accounts to the difficulties encountered by companies in the overseas departments (DOM) in meeting the obligation to submit their accounts within the time limit provided for by law and their consequences on the financing of their investments. Indeed, articles 199 undecies B, 217 undecies and 244 quater of the general tax code make the granting of the tax advantage for compliance by the operator with the obligation to submit accounts under the conditions and deadline provided for by articles L. 232-21 to L. 232-23 of the commercial code, namely 30 days after approval of the accounts by its general meeting. This 30-day obligation is almost impossible to respect in the overseas departments due to the operators' incomprehension of the nature of the obligation incumbent on them over time. Not to mention the various delays observed locally in respecting overseas companies with their accounting obligations. For their part, investors are absolutely unable to verify whether the operators have filed their accounts with the commercial court registry within the month following the approval of their accounts before the investment is put into operation. This administrative failure of overseas companies has nothing to do with the fact of being in compliance with their tax and social obligations but on the other hand leads to almost automatic adjustments on this single formal defect for investors and deprives operators of investment. The problem of the sanction for non-compliance with the 30-day deadline for filing accounts (tax adjustment for the investor and non-reimbursement of aid for the operator) is threefold problematic because it is on the one hand potentially ad aeternam since the obligation is not limited in time, whether it concerns the accounts taken into account to determine whether the deposit obligation has been respected, but also to be able to benefit from tax assistance measures in respect of tax exemption for future financial years. On the other hand, the tax administration does not offer any possibility of regularization, which seems to go against the measures adopted in 2018 on the right to make mistakes and the reestablishment of a relationship of trust between the tax administration and users. Finally, the loss of the tax advantage corresponds to a disproportionate sanction with regard to the legal nature of the failure observed while creating a breach of equality between overseas companies and companies metropolitan areas. Thus, by an overly rigid application of the obligation to deposit accounts in the French Overseas Territories by certain DRFIPs, the operator is deprived of the financing of his investment and the investor loses his tax advantage. He therefore asks him to please indicate what measures he plans to take to remedy this situation.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.