Court of Cassation ruling of 3 April 2026 on 200% tax increases and the personal nature of the sanction
In its ruling of 3 April 2026 (F.24.0069.F), the Court of Cassation clearly confirms that tax sanctions of a punitive nature cannot simply be imposed on heirs who are not involved in the alleged tax infringements. The ruling lies at the intersection of tax law, general sanction law and Article 6 of the ECHR.
Facts and procedural background
The dispute concerned additional personal income tax assessments for the assessment years 2011 to 2014, issued against a taxpayer active in the scrap trade and his spouse. The tax authorities rejected certain professional expenses and also imposed tax increases of 200%, based on incorrect tax returns allegedly involving forgery and the use of false documents.
During the appeal proceedings, the taxpayer passed away. The spouse renounced the inheritance, while the daughter accepted it under benefit of inventory. In her capacity as heir, she continued the proceedings.
In its judgment of 20 February 2023, the Court of Appeal of Liège declared the appeal unfounded and confirmed both the tax assessments and the tax increases.
Judgment of the Court of Cassation
The Court sets aside the contested judgment insofar as it rules on the tax increases and the costs.
The Court starts from the principle that Article 6(2) ECHR provides that anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. From this, the Court infers that criminal liability ceases upon the death of the original taxpayer.
The Court then clarifies that this principle is not limited to traditional criminal law but also applies to administrative sanctions which, given their nature, purpose and severity, are punitive within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR. The formal classification under domestic law is not decisive in this respect. As soon as a measure essentially aims at punishment and deterrence, the fundamental guarantees of Article 6 ECHR must be respected.
In this context, the Court holds that the 200% tax increase for an incorrect or incomplete return, involving forgery or the use of false documents, must be regarded as a sanction of a punitive nature.
The Court further notes that the heir herself did not file any incorrect return and did not commit any forgery or use of false documents. She was involved in the proceedings solely as the legal successor of her deceased father. In those circumstances, she could not be confronted with a sanction based on conduct exclusively attributed to the original taxpayer.
By nevertheless ruling that the tax increases could be upheld against her, the Court of Appeal violated Article 6(2) ECHR. The judgment is therefore set aside to that extent, and the case is referred to the Court of Appeal of Mons.
Conclusion
With this ruling, the Court of Cassation confirms that while the tax authorities may recover the tax debt within the limits of inheritance law, they cannot simply impose punitive tax sanctions on heirs who have committed no wrongdoing.
The ruling thus provides important clarification on the limits of tax succession and confirms that fundamental legal principles fully apply within tax law as well.
Anyone wishing to learn more about this topic, or having specific questions, is welcome to contact us without obligation. We are happy to assist you further.
