Navigating the adversarial principle in Luxembourg tax procedure: key Administrative Court takeaways

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Navigating the adversarial principle in Luxembourg tax procedure: key Administrative Court takeaways

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
Luxembourg garden with a viaduct in the background.jpg

Edouard Authamayou and Christelle Larcher of Deloitte Luxembourg explore the adversarial principle in tax audits, highlighting key court rulings that clarify taxpayer rights and the Luxembourg tax authorities’ obligations to ensure procedural fairness

Throughout the Luxembourg tax process, from the examination of tax returns by the Luxembourg tax authorities (LTA) to hearings in administrative courts, various procedural safeguards are in place to protect taxpayers’ interests.

One of these safeguards is the adversarial principle, which aims to ensure fairness and balance by guaranteeing taxpayers the right to be heard during the reassessment of their tax liabilities through the examination of tax returns and audits (collectively, the ‘tax audit process’). This fundamental principle is specifically recognised in the tax legislation. Section 205(3) of the General Tax Law (Abgabenordnung) provides that “[i]f deviations from the tax return are to be made, taxpayers must be informed in advance of the points where significant deviations to their disadvantage are possible, allowing them to express their views beforehand.”

This article examines how the LTA must comply with this principle during the tax audit process. It is important to note that any breach of this principle by the LTA may lead to the annulment of additional tax adjustments.

Insights based on Luxembourg Administrative Court rulings

Due to the lack of specific formalities in Luxembourg tax law regarding the practical application of the adversarial principle, the question arises as to how the LTA should proceed to comply with this principle during the tax audit process. In recent years, the Luxembourg Administrative Court has provided useful insights in this regard (Administrative Court decisions of June 15 2023, No. 48144C; January 11 2024, No. 48770C; July 11 2024, No. 49177C49685C; and January 30 2025, No. 50349C).

The LTA have generally argued that, as long as there were exchanges of correspondence between them and the taxpayer, the adversarial principle was generally respected. For instance, in one case, the LTA considered an extensive exchange of correspondence between the tax office and the taxpayer sufficient to respect the adversarial principle.

However, the Administrative Court found that the LTA could not limit the application of this fundamental principle to a purely material exchange of documents. The court clarified that, to effectively guarantee this right, the LTA had to ensure that taxpayers were sufficiently informed of the proposed corrections increasing their tax liability and could respond in an informed manner. The court’s approach relied on an examination of each piece of correspondence from the LTA that was unfavourable to the taxpayer.

In this respect, the LTA must communicate their findings appropriately. As the format of this communication is not predetermined, the LTA may choose any form. However, the LTA must prove that their findings have been effectively communicated to the taxpayer. Therefore, in practice, the communication may be in the form of letters, audit reports, or meeting transcripts. The LTA must also inform taxpayers of their right to respond to the communication.

Moreover, to respond in an informed manner, taxpayers should be able to understand the basis for the proposed adjustments that increase their tax liability. For instance, the LTA cannot simply invoke ‘usual margins’ in an industry to increase the revenues of a taxpayer operating in the same sector. On the contrary, the LTA must provide explanations regarding the origin of the retained margins and the comparison factors that led them to conclude that these margins correspond to those typically found among a sample of establishments comparable to the one operated by the relevant taxpayer.

Furthermore, the LTA should allow reasonable time for taxpayers to contest. For example, the LTA cannot refuse an extended deadline for the taxpayer to respond to the LTA’s last correspondence proposing additional tax adjustments not mentioned previously. Similarly, if the LTA’s proposed adjustments are based on grounds that are different from those initially stated, taxpayers should be granted an appropriate period of time to respond to them.

It is essential for taxpayers to effectively navigate the tax audit process and ensure that the LTA do not violate this procedural requirement, which could result in the cancellation of additional taxes.

Potential reform of the Luxembourg tax procedure

Although the legislative reform of the Luxembourg tax procedure has been under discussion for some time, any new legislative measures should incorporate the trends identified by the administrative jurisdiction to streamline the tax audit process and ensure fair treatment of taxpayers.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Three tax experts dissect the impact of a 30% tariff that has shaken up trade relations between South Africa and the US
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Americas Tax Awards
As we move into an era of ‘substance over form’, determining the fundamental nature of a particular instrument is key when evaluating the tax implications of selling hybrid securities
It stands in stark contrast to a mere 1% increase in firmwide revenue since last year
It follows a court case concerning a Freedom of Information request lodged by the founder of a software company
After years of deafening silence, the UK tax authority is taking overdue action against corporates that fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion
The US president has raised India’s tariff rate to 50% because of its importation of Russian oil; in other news, firms made key international tax partner hires
Tax auditors themselves had not been aware of the new TP ‘transaction matrix’ requirements, ITR hears as five German partners share their client experiences
Its features include a built-in AI assistant as well as expert insights and commentary from Deloitte specialists
Gift this article