AGEFI Luxembourg - mai 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 36 Mai 2025 Droit / Emploi L e 2 avril 2025, TheHouse of Ethics™a tenu sa première conférence interdisciplinaire consacrée à l’éthique de l’intelli- gence artificielle (IA). Organisée à Luxembourg, cette demi-journée d’échanges a réuni six intervenants internationaux pour aborder, cha- cundepuis sondomaine, une question essentielle : que devient l’humaindans unmonde façonné par des intelligences artificielles toujours plus présentes, plus ra- pides et plus puissantes ? Dès l’ouverture, le ton était donné. Un jumeau numérique de Katja Rausch, fon- datricedeTheHouseofEthics™,s’estaffi- ché à l’écran, proclamant être « 100%plei- nement productif, fiable et robuste »… avant de s’arrêter net. Une mise en scène ironique, suivie de l’intervention de Katja Rausch elle-même, venue rappeler avec clarté : « C’est exactement pourquoi nous avonstoujoursbesoind’humainsderrière l’intelligence artificielle. Pour assurer, contrôler et orchestrer. » C’est dans cet esprit que s’est ouverte la conférence, avec enpoint d’orgue l’inter- vention à distance de Dr Susie Alegre, juriste et autricedeHumanRights, Robot Wrongs. Depuis Londres, elle a plaidé pour une utilisation raisonnée de l’IA, partageant un exemple personnel mar- quant : son livre Freedom to Think a été utilisé sans autorisation pour entraîner une IA. Cette anecdote a illustré les ten- sions entre innovation, respect de lapro- priété intellectuelle et droits fondamen- taux. Pour elle, dans un contexte où la solitude grandit, il faut s’interroger non seulement sur ce que l’IA permet, mais sur ce qu’elle remplace : la relation, la créativité, l’altérité. Ces préoccupations ont trouvé un écho dansl’interventiondeClaudiaBecker,qui a abordé l’IAgénérative comme un tour- nantcultureletphilosophique.Elleasou- lignéquecesmodèles,loind’êtreneutres, sont porteurs de visions spécifiques du monde, influencées par les biais du lan- gage et des données. L’émergence de ces outils nous oblige à reconsidérer ce que nous entendons par vérité, par connais- sance, par conscience. Dans le prolongement de cette réflexion, Giannis Stamatellos a rappelé que l’éthique ne pouvait se limiter à des cadres techniques. Il a proposé une approche enracinée dans la philosophie de la vertu, où la justice, en tant que dis- positionmorale, joueun rôle central.Une IAdignede confiancene se construit pas seulement avecdes règles,mais avecune sagesse pratique et une conscience éthique incarnée. La conférence a également abordé les implications institutionnelles et juri- diques de ces technologies. Dr Stefano Rossa, professeur de droit, a alerté sur les dérives possibles dans les services publics automatisés. Il a insisté sur l’im- portancedudroit à l’interactionhumaine et d’une transparence algorithmique ren- forcée, notamment dans les processus administratifs, afin de préserver la confiance des citoyens. Cettenotiondeconfianceétaitaucœurde l’intervention de Prof. Dr. Ingrid Vasiliu- Feltes, en direct de Miami. Elle a mis en lumière la fragilitédenos identitésnumé- riques dans un monde "phygital" — à la foisphysiqueetdigital.Faceàlafragmen- tationdecesidentités,elleaappelélesdiri- geantsàrecalibrerleursstratégiesdigitales autourdecadrescyber-éthiquesrésistants auquantiqueetdemodesdegouvernance adaptatifs, indispensables pour bâtir une résilience partagée. Enfin, la conférence s’est conclue par une tablerondeaniméeparDanieleProverbio, directeurdelarechercheinterdisciplinaire. Le débat s’est ouvert sur la polémique Ghibli autour de ChatGPT, reflet des ten- sions culturelles autour de l’IA, avant de s’élargir aux enjeux de gouvernance col- lective.«L’éthiquen’estpasunluxephilo- sophique. C’est un facteur de cohésion sociale et un moteur de confiance. Elle donnedusensauxinteractionsentredéve- loppeurs,régulateursetutilisateurs,etper- met une adoption responsable des tech- nologies », a-t-il conclu. Éthique et IA : que reste-t-il de l’humain ? ©HouseofEthics I n a recent decisiondated 6 March 2025, the Luxembourg administrative court of appeal (the “AdministrativeCourt”) ruled on the evidentiary requirements for demonstrating the existence of a validpower of representation in relation to the “ réclamations ” filed before the Luxembourg tax author- ities (LTA). TheAdministrative Court has, after having analysed the facts anddocuments, bolstered the primacy of access to justice over excessive procedural formalism. The dispute brought before the Administrative Court was centered on whether themandate required for filing a tax claim ( réclamation ) had to be estab- lished inwriting prior to the lodging of a tax claim or if a mandate drawn up ex post , accompanied by substantial evi- dence confirming the existence of an express mandate existing prior to the lodging of a tax claim could suffice. Overview of the case The case was initiated following a tax claim filed by a tax consultancy firm (Firm) for and on behalf of a Luxembourg-residentcompany(LuxCo) against tax assessments. The LTA asked the Firm to prove its power of representation for and on behalf of the LuxCo, by providing the power of attorney establishing its express and special mandate to chal- lenge the tax assessments. A power of attorney was submitted to the LTA, whichwas dated the day itwas issued, i.e. after thedate onwhich the tax claim was lodged, and had an effective date on the date of issue of the disputed tax assessments. The LTA declared the tax claim inadmissible for lack of a valid mandate of the Firm to file the tax claim for and on behalf of the LuxCo. The LuxCo file a recourse with the Luxembourg administrative tribunal (Administrative Tribunal). The latter confirmed the LTA’s position on the grounds that there was no evidence of a written mandate having been grant- ed to the Firm on the day the tax claim was filed (or even earlier) (1) . The Administrative Tribunal considered that an ex post confirmation of theman- date was insufficient to meet the strict requirements of §243 Abgabenordnung ( AO ). The LuxCo filed an appeal against said judgment and theAdministrativeCourt ruled in its favor by upholding that, despite the absence of a written power of attorney prior to the filing of the tax claim, the combination of written evi- dence and consistent conduct on the part of the LuxCo and the Firmwas suf- ficient to establish that themandate had indeed existed at the relevant time. Background related to powers of attorney issued by tax payers to dispute tax assessments Under procedural tax rules (2) , a taxpayer may appoint a representative to act on its behalf in taxmatters. However, when lodging a tax claimwith the Director of the LTA to challenge a tax assessment, a special and expressmandate is required due to the potential risk of reformatio in pejus that the tax claim may entail. Indeed, a tax claim allows the LTA to modify a tax assessment at the taxpay- er’s detriment when reviewing a tax claim. Therefore, the LTArequires proof of the mandate to ensure that the deci- sion to file a tax claimwas endorsed by the taxpayer (3) . In the past, the Administrative Court already ruled (4) that the mere fact that a written power of attorney is produced only after the filing of the tax claimdoes not ipso facto render the tax claim inad- missible for lack of mandate, the claimant being entitled to establish, even ex post (5) , the existence of amandate at the time of filing the tax claim. Moreover, theAdministrativeCourt has already ruled that an oralmandate, later confirmed by a written power of attor- ney, is considered valid (6) . Furthermore, the Administrative Tribunal has previously ruled in favor of taxpayers based on statements con- firming the existence of the mandate at the time of the claim, andbasedonwrit- ten powers of attorney provided after the filing of the tax claim. The Administrative Tribunal confirmed that unequivocal statements from taxpayers confirming themandate are sufficient to demonstrate its existence and validity (7) . In the case at hand, the Administrative Courtwent one step further, focusingnot only on the content of the power of attor- ney but also and above all on other pro- bativefactualandcircumstantialevidence and looked at the substantial characteris- tics that arise from our Constitution, namely, egality andproportionality. What this judgment brings? TheAdministrative Court held that the LTA and the Administrative Tribunal had applied an excessively rigid stan- dardwhen assessing the validity of the mandate presented by the tax payer. In fact, the Administrative Court consid- ered that, although the written power of attorney was dated 15 July 2021 (i.e. several months after the tax claim was filed), “the administrative judge is called upon to focus on substance rather than form”, and in the case at hand, the Administrative Court relied on the following factual and circum- stantial elements in establishing the existence of a mandate: -Thewrittenpowerofattorney:although dated 15 July 2021 (after the filing of the tax claim), thewrittenpower of attorney explicitly stated that the Firm had been mandated to act for and on behalf of the LuxCo as of 16 December 2020 (i.e. the date the original 2019 tax assessments were issued by the LTA). The Administrative Court held that this doc- ument establishes without discussion that the taxpayer wished tomandate the Firm to file the tax claim, - A non-challenged power of attorney in the context of the filing of the rectified 2019 tax returns: the Administrative Court pointed out that the mandate to filetheamendedtaxreturnswasnotchal- lenged by the LTA (unlike the mandate to file the tax claim) and ruled that the amended tax returns and the tax claim had the sameobjective, namely tocorrect the LuxCo’s tax situation on the basis of its newly adopted 2019 annual accounts, - The unambiguous taxpayer declara- tions: throughout the proceedings, the LuxCo consistently affirmed that it had granted an oral mandate to the Firm from the outset and that the written mandate merely confirmed and docu- mented an already-existingmandate for the filing of the tax claim. What sets this decisionapart fromearlier decisions is the emphasis placed on the constitutional right of access to justice. Indeed, theAdministrativeCourt (i) first recalled that in its decision n° 152 of 22 January 2021, the Constitutional Court recognized the constitutional value of the principle of proportionality and (ii) then explicitly stated that an extremely strict assessment of proof of the exis- tence of a special and express mandate prior to the filing of a tax claim would be disproportionate and contrary to the constitutional principle of access to jus- tice. By doing so, the Administrative Court’s analysis went beyond the strict application of procedural rules and embraced a broader interpretation that takes into account the practical realities of legal representation and the taxpay- ers’ right to be heard. Therefore, this decision is a significant step toward a fairer approach in the framework of tax litigation in Luxembourg. By recognizing that man- dates can be demonstrated by various means of evidence and interpreted in light of constitutional principles, the judgment strengthens taxpayers’ protec- tions, ensuring that administrative pro- cesses donot become unduly restrictive. Key takeaways to retain Emphasis on substantive justice: By ruling that access to justice must not be obstructed by excessive formalism, the AdministrativeCourt has reinforced the principle that legal procedures must serve the interests of justice. Thedecision highlights the necessity for a balanced application of procedural requirements, one that respects both the integrity of administrative processes and the tax- payer’s fundamental rights. Documentation remains key: Tax pro- fessionals and taxpayers should contin- ue to ensure that documentation of any mandate is preserved. While this judg- ment acknowledges the validity of cir- cumstantial evidence, writtenmandates remain the best practice for avoiding procedural challenges. Supporting evi- dence such as email exchanges confirm- ing instructions tofile tax claims, invoic- es for legal or tax services, as well as internal records aiming at deciding to challenge a tax assessment, can serve as crucial evidence if a dispute arises over the validity of a mandate. Annie ELFASSI, Partner AndreaADDAMIANO, Counsel Merona GEHBRHIWET, SeniorAssociate – Tax Litigation Baker &McKenzie Luxembourg 1) Administrative Tribunal, 27 September 2024, n° 47685 2)Articles 238 and 243AO 3)Administrative Court, 15December 2024, n°33669 4)Administrative Tribunal 30April 2013, n°31278 5)Administrative Tribunal 12 July 2021, n°43979 6)AdministrativeCourt,30November2023,n°49092C 7) Administrative Tribunal, 3 March 2010, n°25946 andAdministrative Tribunal, 30April 2013, n°21278 Taxpayers’ access to justice reaffirmed: Excessive formalities should not hinder taxpayers’ ability to seek legal recourse