Taxes: Is the "right to make a mistake" being called into question?

Does a May 9 decision by the Council of State call into question the famous “right to make a mistake,” a symbol of a more lenient administration open to dialogue? A look back at a legal twist that could be a game-changer for taxpayers.

What is the “right to make a mistake”?
Introduced by successive governments, the “right to make a mistake” allows taxpayers to correct their tax returns without incurring penalties, provided they act in good faith. This measure aims to simplify administrative procedures and strengthen trust between the government and individuals. The principle is simple: the government must prove the error or bad faith in order to impose a penalty—not the other way around.
 

How does it work?
Before the filing deadline, taxpayers can freely amend their tax returns.

After the filing period, an online correction service remains available from early August through early December to adjust the information, except for details related to identity or family status.
This procedure helps avoid tax disputes by correcting errors directly without litigation.

The Council of State’s Decision: What Has Changed
In its May 9 decision (case no. 496935), the Council of State issued a ruling that drastically limits the value of this online correction. The case involves a married couple who were victims of a Ponzi scheme and wished to amend their tax return after the deadline to reclassify certain income as loan repayments.
 

The tax authorities rejected this amendment, arguing that an online correction could only apply to an increase in reported income. The Paris Administrative Court of Appeal had ruled in their favor in June 2024, but the Council of State ruled otherwise. It held that any correction made after the deadline constitutes a contentious claim, shifting the burden of proof… to the taxpayer.
 

Practical implications:
The 2017 ministerial press release, which established the right to make corrections online, no longer has legal standing. Any change made after the deadline is now considered a claim, which involves a litigation process. Taxpayers must now prove the error for any downward adjustment, which greatly complicates the process.

How should you respond to this new situation?
The Council of State’s decision complicates the use of online corrections. To avoid unpleasant surprises, here are some practical tips:
When in doubt, report a slightly lower amount than expected: if you are unsure of an amount, it is better to err on the side of caution when filing your initial return. After all, it is up to the tax authorities to prove otherwise.
Use the “express” notation: this option allows you to indicate uncertainty when filing your return. It serves as supporting documentation if the tax authorities question the amount you reported.
Correct your return promptly as soon as the information becomes available: if you receive further details after filing, adjust your return upward as soon as possible.
 

Downward Adjustments: An Increasingly Narrow Path
From now on, the online correction tool appears to be reserved primarily for increases in reported income. Downward adjustments, on the other hand, fall under the purview of litigation—a far more complex and uncertain path.
 

Why?
According to the Council of State, a correction made after the legal deadline cannot be held against the government, even though the Minister of Action and Public Accounts had promised the opposite in 2017. In other words, taxpayers’ leeway to correct errors is significantly reduced if they wish to lower their reported income after the deadline.
 

Toward a "right to make a mistake"… that works only one way?
With this decision, the "right to make a mistake" now appears to be a one-way street: it would make it easier to file overestimated returns but drastically complicates downward corrections. This paradox is sure to fuel the debate over the balance between administrative trust and tax audits.
 

Only time will tell whether lawmakers will decide to clarify this situation in order to restore the full meaning of this right, which was promised as a means of building trust between citizens and the government.