Luxembourg tribunal rules taxpayer’s informative letter does not qualify as tax claim

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

Luxembourg tribunal rules taxpayer’s informative letter does not qualify as tax claim

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
Person writing

Edouard Authamayou of Deloitte Luxembourg explains an Administrative Tribunal ruling that clarifies the distinction between modification requests and formal tax claims, highlighting procedural requirements for taxpayers submitting claims to the grand duchy’s tax authorities

On July 9 2025, the Luxembourg Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) issued a decision (No. 49156) that distinguishes a modification request under Section 94 of the General Tax Law of 22 May 1931 (the Abgabenordnung, or AO) from a tax claim under Section 228 of the AO. Although subject to appeal, the ruling also provides guidelines on the specific legal requirements that must be met for a tax claim to be considered and processed by the Luxembourg tax authorities (LTA).

The Tribunal determined that a letter from a taxpayer – explaining that its financial statements for the relevant financial year would be amended and that revised tax returns would be submitted subsequently, following the issuance of a provisional tax assessment under Section 100a of the AO – cannot qualify as a tax claim. For the correspondence to qualify as a tax claim, it should, at a minimum, have indicated that the taxpayer considered itself negatively affected by the tax assessment and was seeking a complete reassessment of its taxable basis.

Background and facts of the case

On July 1 2021, a Luxembourg company (the Company) filed its FY 2019 tax returns. On July 14 2021, the tax office issued provisional tax assessments based on Section 100a(1) of the AO. On August 26 2021, the Company submitted a letter (the Letter) to the tax inspector explaining that the financial statements for FY 2019 did not adequately represent its economic reality and did not provide a true and fair view. It further indicated that the financial statements for FY 2019 would be amended and that amended tax returns would be submitted accordingly.

On November 11 2021, the Company filed amended tax returns for FY 2019. However, the LTA treated the Letter as a pure informative letter and the amended tax returns as a modification request. As such, the LTA refused an adjustment under Section 94(1) of the AO as the three-month deadline since the issuance of the tax assessments in July had expired.

On July 12 2023, the Company filed an appeal before the Tribunal to amend or cancel the 2019 tax assessments.

Distinction between a modification request and a tax claim

In its ruling, the Tribunal restated that the distinction between a modification request (Section 94, AO) and a tax claim (Section 228, AO) lies in the objective pursued. A modification request aims to correct a specific point of the taxpayer’s taxable basis, while a claim seeks to challenge the taxable basis as a whole and triggers a complete reassessment of the taxpayer’s tax position by the director of the LTA, potentially resulting in a revision ‘in pejus’ (i.e., a less favourable outcome).

In the present case, the Company’s argument concerned only the qualification of its Letter as a tax claim.

Requirements of a valid tax claim

According to the Tribunal, for a valid tax claim to be recognised, the taxpayer must explicitly demonstrate that it believes it has been adversely affected by the tax assessment in question and request a formal review of its taxation (see also Cour Administrative, No. 39755C, of January 9 2018). While there is no strict formality required in presenting such a claim, a minimum threshold of diligence must be maintained by the taxpayer in the formulation of the request.

While the absence of formal terminology, such as the explicit use of the term “claim”, does not necessarily invalidate a claim, in the case at hand, the Tribunal found that the Company’s correspondence failed to explicitly challenge the tax assessments, or offer any explanation as to whether it was adversely affected by them. Instead, the communication merely informed the authorities about forthcoming updates to annual accounts without addressing how these updates would affect the tax assessments, thereby failing to meet the requirements for a valid claim.

Additionally, the Tribunal considered that the LTA is not obliged to proactively seek clarification from taxpayers regarding unclear or insufficient submissions and that taxpayers must articulate their claims comprehensively within the prescribed three-month timeframe.

The Tribunal concluded that the Company’s submission did not qualify as a formal tax claim under Section 228 of the AO, as it failed to provide any grievance or request for a formal review of its taxable basis. Consequently, its subsequent appeal was deemed inadmissible.

Key takeaway

While the Tribunal’s decision is still subject to appeal, it underscores the importance of taxpayers adhering to procedural requirements when submitting a tax claim. A valid claim must, within the prescribed time limits, explicitly outline the grievances concerning the tax assessment and clearly indicate the taxpayer’s request for a comprehensive review of its assessment. Failure to meet these requirements will likely render the claim inadmissible, as demonstrated in the case at hand.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Increasingly complex reporting requirements contributed towards the firm’s growth in tax, it said
Sector-specific business taxes, private equity tax treatment reform and changes to the taxation of non-residents are all on the cards for the UK, authors from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer predict
The UK’s Labour government has an unpopular prime minister, an unpopular chancellor and not a lot of good options as it prepares to deliver its autumn Budget
Awards
The firms picked up five major awards between them at a gala ceremony held at New York’s prestigious Metropolitan Club
The streaming company’s operating income was $400m below expectations following the dispute; in other news, the OECD has released updates for 25 TP country profiles
Software company Oracle has won the right to have its A$250m dispute with the ATO stayed, paving the way for a mutual agreement procedure
If the US doesn't participate in pillar two then global consensus on the project can’t be a reality, tax academic René Matteotti also suggests
If it gets pillar two right, India may be the ideal country that finds a balance between its global commitments and its national interests, Sameer Sharma argues
As World Tax unveils its much-anticipated rankings for 2026, we focus on EMEA’s top performers in the first of three regional analyses
Firms are spending serious money to expand their tax advisory practices internationally – this proves that the tax practice is no mere sideshow
Gift this article