Introduction to the Issue of Wealth Tax in Tunisia
In recent months, numerous Tunisian taxpayers have received notices from the tax administration informing them that they are in default of filing the declaration related to the wealth tax on real estate. This tax, established by Article 23 of the 2023 Finance Act, targets real estate assets with a value equal to or greater than three million dinars. Affected individuals have 30 days to regularize their situation, under penalty of an office tax.
However, several cases have shown that even taxpayers who have estimated their assets below the legal threshold have received tax assessment notices. This situation raises a series of fundamental questions: is the tax administration entitled - and able - to evaluate a real estate asset? And do taxpayers really have the means necessary to fulfill this new obligation in legally secure conditions?
Opaque Estimation, Risky Obligation
The legislation requires taxpayers to declare the value of their real estate assets as soon as they reach or exceed three million dinars. But how can this obligation be met without access to reliable references or a recognized evaluation method? Taxpayers are neither notaries nor real estate experts. They do not have the skills or authority to evaluate the "commercial value" of their own assets.
On the other hand, the tax administration sends notices based on an estimate that it does not communicate. The taxpayer discovers the retained valuation only when receiving the tax assessment notice. Moreover, they cannot discuss the basis of the estimate, as the administration directly notifies them of a tax assessment, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Code of Tax Rights and Procedures. This forces them to directly appeal to the court.
Before the court, only Article 62 of the Code of Tax Rights and Procedures allows for a genuine evaluation, through the mandatory appointment of a judicial expert. However, this long, costly, and uncertain process is far from guaranteeing equal opportunities between the administration and the taxpayer. It even constitutes, in some respects, an obstacle to the fundamental right of defense - all the more worrying since this tax was adopted without parliamentary debate.
Evaluation Method Without Legal Basis
Another problematic point is the evaluation method applied by the administration. Many tax assessment notices are based on an automatic revaluation of 10% per year of the asset's value. This rate, taken without justification, seems inspired by the rules of actualization used for calculating real estate capital gains. However, it is unsuitable for determining the current market value, which depends on a multitude of parameters: location, supply and demand, economic context, type of asset, etc.
The most surprising thing is the lack of use of the real estate price indices published by the National Institute of Statistics, classified by category of assets and by region. These data, although valuable, are ignored, whereas they could constitute an objective and shared basis between taxpayers and the administration.
Evaluators Without Accreditation
In the judicial phase, real estate evaluation is entrusted to accredited, qualified, and independent experts. In contrast, tax administration agents do not have adequate specialization or legal recognition to estimate real estate values. No text frames or legitimizes such competence, which challenges the legal validity of tax decisions based on their estimates.
Minimum Guarantees for Major Stakes
The principle of tax legality requires transparency, predictability, and legal security. These requirements are not met in the current implementation of the wealth tax on real estate. The taxpayer is placed in a position of permanent uncertainty: they must declare without knowing how, and contest without being able to discuss the substance of the evaluation.
It is therefore urgent to establish a clear framework, based on recognized market indicators, an accessible methodology, and a genuine right of appeal on substantive elements, particularly the estimated value of the assets.
Conclusion: The Exception Should Not Become the Rule
The wealth tax on real estate could be an instrument of tax justice and equitable contribution. But in its current configuration, it becomes a breeding ground for contestation and rupture of trust between the administration and citizens. Without reform, it risks aggravating the feeling of legal insecurity in a context where the relationship between the state and the taxpayer is already marked by distrust.
By Skander SALLEMI, Tax Advisor, Active member of Tunisian civil society.
