\ud83d\udc49 The taxpayer has granted a loan to her wholly-owned subsidiary for the purchase of a plot of land to be developed. The property development project has been put on hold. The taxpayer is writing off part of the loan to her subsidiary by recognising a provision, which is charged against taxable profit.
The tax authorities do not accept the provision, as confirmed by the various appeal bodies.
Judges reiterate the principle of account determinacy.
Certainly, two appeals were pending at the close of the financial year concerning the general allocation plan for the building owned by the subsidiary company. However, these appeals do not lead to the conclusion that there was an imminent risk of substantial loss of value of the building, and therefore of the loan, at the time of the closing of the accounts. The postposition of the debt is also not an indicator of imminent loss justifying the creation of the disputed provision.
The ruling is in French. It concerns a Geneva case. The underlying building is located on Vaudois land, and the PGA was the subject of ATF 146 II 289.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
TF, judgment 9C_452\/2024, of 15 July 2025<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ud83d\udc49 La contribuable fait un pr\u00eat \u00e0 sa soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fille d\u00e9tenue \u00e0 100% pour l’acquisition d’une parcelle \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper. Le projet de d\u00e9veloppement immobilier est bloqu\u00e9. La contribuable amortit, par la comptabilisation d’une provision, une partie du pr\u00eat \u00e0 sa soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fille, \u00e0 charge du b\u00e9n\u00e9fice imposable. \ud83d\udc49 Le fisc n’admet pas la provision, suivi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n