PLF 2027: what new powers for the tax authorities?

The draft Finance Bill for 2027 does not merely amend certain tax regimes: it also provides for several changes concerning the investigative powers of the tax authorities, the conduct of audits and tax collection, and greater legal certainty for certain tax positions.

Presented to the Council of Ministers and then tabled in the National Assembly on 1 October 2026, the draft Finance Bill for 2027 (PLF 2027) is the text by which the Government submits to Parliament the revenue, expenditure and main tax measures planned for the coming year.

Its debate in plenary session is due to begin on 13 October 2026.

At this stage, its provisions may therefore still be amended during the parliamentary debates.

Among the many tax measures proposed, Articles 29 to 31 directly concern relations between the tax authorities and taxpayers: investigative powers, audits of computerised accounts, collection and tax rulings. The bill’s wealth measures are analysed separately in our article on gifts, apport-cession, life insurance and LMNP.

Some provisions clearly strengthen the investigative capacity of the French tax administration (DGFiP). Others modernise existing procedures or, conversely, seek to offer greater legal certainty to certain taxpayers.

1. Does the PLF 2027 strengthen the investigative powers of the tax authorities?

Could the tax authorities’ use of content published on social media and online platforms become permanent?

The draft Finance Bill provides for making permanent a scheme for collecting and exploiting certain content accessible on online platforms, trialled by the tax authorities since 2020.

Introduced by the Finance Law for 2020, this scheme authorised the tax authorities to collect and exploit, by means of computerised and automated processing, certain content made public by its users in order to improve the detection of tax breaches and the targeting of audits.

The mechanism has since been extended and its legal framework adjusted. The PLF 2027 now proposes to make it permanent by introducing a new Article L. 80 S into the French Tax Procedures Code (Livre des procédures fiscales, LPF).

This provision would allow the DGFiP to use computerised and automated processing to detect certain tax breaches, in particular the carrying on of an undeclared activity, the understatement or concealment of receipts and certain situations involving tax residence.

The scheme would cover only content manifestly made public by its authors and publicly accessible on the platforms concerned, including where viewing it requires creating or using an account. The use of facial recognition would remain expressly excluded.

The text also provides for several safeguards. Processing would be reserved for specially authorised officials. Sensitive data, or data manifestly unrelated to the breaches sought, would have to be destroyed within five working days. Strictly necessary data could be kept for a maximum of one year, unless used in tax or criminal proceedings.

Above all, the information gathered could not, on its own, be relied on directly against the taxpayer. Where it reveals indications of a breach, it would have to be passed to the competent department so that it can be corroborated and supplemented. It could then only be relied on against the person concerned in the course of a tax audit procedure.

The PLF therefore does not create an entirely new power of online surveillance: it makes permanent a mechanism trialled since 2020, while retaining the framework designed to limit the use of the data collected.

Does the PLF 2027 extend the scope of tax searches?

The tax authorities already have a right of search and seizure under Article L. 16 B of the LPF. This procedure, sometimes described as a “tax search”, allows the tax authorities, with the authorisation of the liberty and custody judge, to enter any premises, even private ones, without prior notice in order to search for and seize evidence capable of establishing certain tax frauds. Its scope nevertheless remains strictly defined by law, both as regards the taxes concerned and the conduct that may justify its use.

The PLF 2027 does not create a new general power of search: it proposes to extend this procedure to one particular area, the tax incentive schemes for investment in the French overseas territories.

The bill starts from the observation that these regimes can give rise to complex fraudulent schemes, owing both to the size of the tax advantages at stake and to the number of parties involved in the arrangements through which the tax relief is obtained. This organisation can make it harder for the DGFiP to identify and, above all, to prove fraudulent conduct.

It is in this context that Article 30 proposes to reinstate an Article L. 45 E of the LPF. It would target the professionals who set up these overseas tax-reduction transactions where there are grounds to suspect that they are engaging in or participating in fraudulent conduct intended to procure an undue tax advantage for investors, in particular where the funds are allocated to wholly or partly ineligible projects or where the investments lack any substance.

In that case, the judicial authority could authorise specially empowered tax officials to carry out searches of any premises, including private premises, where documents capable of establishing such conduct are held or accessible, and to seize them, whatever their medium.

The novelty lies less in the conduct of the search than in its scope: the future Article L. 45 E would refer to paragraphs II to V of Article L. 16 B of the LPF for most of the procedure, whether the judicial authorisation, the conduct of the search, the seizures or the remedies.

The same article also provides for several additional measures: a fine of 10,000 euros for refusing to provide the documents or information requested in the course of the audit provided for in Article L. 80 R of the LPF, together with mechanisms for joint liability for payment, publication of fraudulent conduct and adjustment of the penalties applicable in the event of obstruction of the new search and seizure operations.

2. How could audit and collection procedures change?

Would the audit of computerised accounts become more fully paperless?

The PLF 2027 also provides for adjustments to the practical arrangements for auditing computerised accounts.

Where a business keeps its accounts using computerised systems, Article L. 47 A of the LPF already allows the tax authorities to process the accounting data being audited.

On the basis of this data, the tax authorities may in particular carry out searches, sorting, cross-checks or calculations in order to verify the consistency of the entries and identify any anomalies.

The PLF 2027 would not fundamentally change these audit arrangements. Above all, it provides that the standards for producing and transmitting copies of files would be laid down by ministerial order, and that the results of computer processing giving rise to adjustments would henceforth be communicated to the taxpayer in electronic form only, including in the case of an unannounced audit.

These provisions would apply to audits begun on or after 1 January 2027. This is therefore mainly a technical modernisation of the procedure, rather than a substantial strengthening of the tax authorities’ audit powers.

Could the tax authorities attach a securities account directly?

The PLF also contains an important change in the area of collection. Article 30 proposes to extend the administrative third-party attachment (saisie administrative à tiers détenteur) to securities accounts.

Where the attachment concerned a securities account, it could cover all the financial securities held by the debtor on the date of the attachment, up to the amount of the debt being enforced. The bill also provides that, if the taxpayer does not sell the securities, they could be subject to a forced sale by the third-party holder, under arrangements to be laid down by a decree adopted after consultation with the Conseil d’État. The proceeds of the sale would then be allocated to the public creditor up to the amount of the attachment.

In practice, the measure would not be neutral for a taxpayer holding a significant portfolio: the forced sale would take place without regard to market conditions and could, moreover, give rise to a taxable capital gain. A taxpayer who challenges the assessment may, in support of their formal tax claim, request the stay of payment provided for in Article L. 277 of the LPF, which suspends the enforceability of the disputed sums and bars enforcement, subject where applicable to the provision of security. It is still necessary to act in time: an administrative third-party attachment in principle takes immediate effect upon notification by allocating the attached sums to the public creditor, so that a request for a stay made afterwards no longer allows the attachment to be undone, the sums seized being merely treated as security.

This measure does not, strictly speaking, fall within the scope of tax audits or the search for breaches. It comes at a later stage, once the debt has been established, and therefore concerns enforced collection. It is nevertheless part of the same movement to strengthen and modernise the instruments available to the tax authorities.

3. What safeguards for taxpayers, and what is the scope of these measures?

Is the “silence means consent” principle extended to tax rulings?

The PLF 2027 provides for an experiment, until 31 December 2028, with a “silence means consent” mechanism for certain businesses already engaged in a relationship of trust with the tax authorities.

The scheme would therefore not be open to all taxpayers. It would concern businesses that have entered into a tax partnership with the DGFiP and SMEs benefiting from the personalised tax support scheme.

Where a business covered by one of these schemes asks the tax authorities for a formal position on a factual situation in the light of a tax provision, the absence of a reasoned reply within three months could allow it to benefit from the guarantee provided for in Article L. 80 A of the LPF.

In other words, in the situations concerned, the tax authorities’ silence would no longer be neutral: once the three-month period had expired, the position presented by the business could be regarded as accepted.

The mechanism would, however, be strictly circumscribed. The request would have to be written, precise, complete and made in good faith. It would not apply where the department to which the request is addressed decides to refer it for an opinion to the tax legislation directorate or to the DGFiP department responsible for legal certainty and tax audits.

The arrangements for exercising the option, the content of the request and where it is to be filed, as well as the arrangements by which the tax authorities must acknowledge receipt or point out missing information, would be laid down by a decree adopted after consultation with the Conseil d’État. This decree will also determine the date from which the first requests may benefit from the scheme.

The aim is therefore not to establish a general principle under which the tax authorities’ silence would amount to acceptance for all tax rulings. On the contrary, the PLF proposes a targeted experiment, reserved for businesses already in an enhanced relationship with the DGFiP.

Why must these measures be monitored throughout the parliamentary debate?

At this stage, these provisions are only the initial text of the draft Finance Bill. Their content may change during the examination in the National Assembly and then in the Senate, before the Finance Law for 2027 is finally adopted.

Their direction is nevertheless clear. On the one hand, the bill strengthens fraud detection tools, by making permanent the automated exploitation of content published online and by creating a targeted power of search and seizure. On the other hand, it modernises the audit of computerised accounts and trials stronger protection for tax rulings. The tax authorities would thus have more information at their disposal, while its use would remain subject to the taxpayer’s safeguards.

For the taxpayers and businesses concerned, these changes reinforce the value of an anticipatory approach: regularising where appropriate, securing sensitive tax positions and, where the conditions are met, considering access to the schemes based on a relationship of trust with the tax authorities.

Based in Nice, the Valenor firm assists private individuals and businesses in the tax audit and collection procedures implemented by the tax authorities.

For each client, we assess what these changes mean in practice for their situation: their exposure to an audit, the strength of the tax positions already taken and whether a regularisation or a tax ruling would be advisable before the text is finally adopted.

Bruno Gherardi
Tax lawyer in Nice - Cabinet Valenor