This investment, Claude Hubert intended him without concern. He saw as a source of extra income for retirement. Had it is no doubt that it would become his worst nightmare. And it more than five years now.
This former senior decided in 1999 to place a large portion of his savings in a medicalized residence. He was well placed to assess the relevance of its investment. For years, he volunteer chairs an association Manager of medico-social institutes. He therefore familiar with the social challenges of the ageing of the population: the accommodation needs will go in increasing, but the State will not be able to cover them all. It will have to appeal to private initiative.

Based on this analysis, our citizen taxpayer therefore signed for the purchase of housing in an Epad, facility for the dependent elderly. His approach is that of an investor. But, since he can argue there, he also argues the benefit of the status of professional furnished rental.
Las! It was effective without personal reading of an Inspector of taxes of the Val-de-Marne. The latter he rejects the right to take advantage of a tax benefit. Because, he explains in substance to his interlocutor, the first year, he was not able to justify 23,000 euros of revenue. And for good reason! The residence was not yet in service, having been marketed in Vefa (sales in the future state of completion). Nothing of very banal! Therefore, all programs are marketed in the nine. For those who are the subject of a montage of tax exemption, the pro rata temporis rule is applied. That is, the tax saving is calculated on the number of months where the property has been actually rented.
However, never the administration did obstacle to investors that they allocate, during this first year, their costs first establishment, constitution of the record, with insurance-related and all deeds. Many works of practical tax detail this procedure. Use apply everywhere. Except apparently in the Val-de-Marne, where the officer in charge of the record against his interpretation of the texts and declared a requalification of an amount of 50.000 euros.
Creation of an association
Claude Hubert, is a shock. By placing the savings of a lifetime in a project he thought useful to society, ever he is imagined to see one day suspected to have intended "eroded excess" of the tax authorities. He then decides to fight because he feels victim of an injustice. He obtained successively the appointment with his Deputy, with the representatives of the majority in Parliament, the services of Bercy, the Director of Office of the Secretary in the Budget. All him lend a friendly ear, considering that this is an anomaly that will not fail to be quickly rectified. Instead, the correspondence accumulate and become bogged down in the record. Infuriated, Claude Hubert contacted the Ombudsman of the Republic, Jean-Paul Delevoye. The latter, in turn, agrees that the pro rata rule should apply. He insists his surprise that never this obstacle is raised when it was other tax incentives (Malraux Act, respecting the Historic Monuments Act Girardin on the DOM - TOM).
Yet, despite this support, nothing happens. Our individual remains liable to relief of 50,000 euros to a total investment of 500,000 euros. But Claude Hubert discovers that he is not alone in his case. In fact, records of all customers of the sponsor have been centralized in the Val-de-Marne. They are in fact nearly 300 to undergo a requalification for the same reasons. They decided to incorporate association, Assodic, Association for the defence of taxpayers investors. Will they be better heard It is said that the union makes the force...