Some rulings of the Court of Cassation reshape the Belgian tax landscape and broadly influence practice. Others address situations so specific that they will likely remain anecdotal — though no less interesting — such as the ruling we analyse today.
The facts
A taxpayer files personal income tax returns for tax years 2011–2014, accompanied by forged documents. The tax authorities therefore apply tax increases at the maximum rate of 200%. The taxpayer dies in December 2020 while the dispute is still pending, and it is his daughter — an heir who has accepted the estate — who takes over the proceedings.
She requests the annulment of the tax increases, invoking the presumption of innocence, as she has not personally committed any forgery. The Liège Court of Appeal had rejected this request; the Court of Cassation overturns that decision.
The structural tension — civil law vs criminal law
Under succession law (civil law), the heir takes on both the assets and liabilities of the deceased. Tax debts are therefore transferred without difficulty. The question is different when the debt includes a punitive component.
However, the tax increases under Article 444 of the ITC 92 constitute an autonomous criminal sanction, bringing into tax litigation the guarantees of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights — which guarantees the right to a fair trial — and thereby ensuring the principle of the presumption of innocence.
From the principle of the personal nature of penalties flows a fundamental rule that the Court explicitly recalls: "criminal liability does not survive the perpetrator of the unlawful act." This rule applies to administrative sanctions of a repressive nature.
The Court structures its reasoning in three steps:
Limits and scope of the ruling
An heir who has committed no offence cannot be subjected to the punitive component of an assessment that is still being contested. However, if the sanction is final before the death, it becomes part of the estate's liabilities and remains due. This distinction is fundamental.
This ruling calls for a number of reflexes in succession practice:
Audit at the opening of the estate: identify whether disputed assessments contain tax increases or repressive fines that can still be challenged. These may be annulled if the heir is personally innocent.
Targeted challenge: the request for annulment may relate solely to the tax increases, independently of any challenge to the principal tax.
Benefit of inventory: in cases of uncertainty regarding the state of the tax dispute, acceptance under the benefit of inventory protects the heir against subsequent discoveries.
Broader context: this ruling is part of a line of case law that progressively imposes criminal law guarantees on repressive tax sanctions. The key challenge becomes determining, on a case-by-case basis, from which percentage of increase these sanctions take on a repressive character.