NOTChristmas and New Year’s Day are ideal occasions to offer “customary gifts », that is to say gifts which will have the advantage of not having to be reinstated to the estate, nor declared to the tax authorities, if their value does not exceed 2% of the assets and 2.5% of the income of the donor. The same goes for birthday gifts or birth gifts.
Provided, of course, that the person receiving them can prove that they were indeed given to them for a birthday or a birth, as the following story reminds us.
In 2017, Mr. , recorded on his account in 2014 and 2015.
Since he does not respond, the administration “office fee”as permitted by the Book of Tax Procedures (article L. 69): it subjects them to additional income tax and social security contributions, accompanied by penalties.
In April 2021, with the help of the tax law firm CMS Francis Lefebvre, Mr. He explains that the disputed sums recorded in his account correspond to “non-taxable customary gifts”offered on the occasion of the birth of his daughters.
Relationship with the donor
Alas, the court refuses to follow him. The first transfer, of 20,000 euros, was in fact credited on November 4, 2014, i.e. “more than a year later” the happy event he was supposed to celebrate (occurred on October 30, 2013); such a time gap “does not establish the link” between the receipt of money and the“family event” invoked by the litigant.
In addition, it is supposed to have been offered by Mr. Y, half-brother of MX But it originated “an account held with the management company Stokors, of which Mr. Y is a client”. And, to justify its origin, Mr. “simply presents a certificate from Mr. Z, director of the Stokors company, which indicates that it is a birth gift”. However, this “does not in any way establish a close link between Mr. Y, the said company, and the applicant”.
The second transfer, of 15,000 euros, credited on September 23, 2015, only arrived a month and a half after the birth of the second child, which occurred on August 8, 2015. But it is still too late in the eyes of justice . Unless she wonders if it is really a birth gift: it comes from a certain Mr. Z, whose link to the beneficiary “is in no way demonstrated”. The court therefore rejects the request by Mr. X, June 28, 2023.