By Master Ibrahima DIAWARA
Lawyer, Registered at the Bar of Senegal on 06.02.1987. Holding a Master’s degree in Business Law.
The initial finance law of 2025, in its various provisions, abolished articles 700 to 705 of the General Tax Code. This discreet manner of proceeding could suggest a desire to strengthen fiscal arbitrariness against the taxpayer.
Indeed, these suppressions seem to be driven by the idea of strengthening the powers of the tax administration by placing it beyond the scope of any external control that could create a contradictory mechanism for controlling and verifying its exorbitant powers.
The tax administration, which, by law, has the unilateral power to carry out control, adjustment, confirmation, and issuance of a collection title outside of any external control, it appears that the abolition of conciliation committees is not aimed at strengthening a process of good fiscal governance.
How can one understand that, despite the legal obligation on the Minister of Finance to specify the operating procedures of the aforementioned committees, he refrained from complying for over a decade? This refusal to establish conciliation committees constituted a serious violation of the taxpayer’s rights to submit their claims to an external body in the face of the all-powerful tax administration.
Despite this serious breach, the Ministry of Finance has recently stealthily slipped, in the initial finance law of 2025 under various provisions, the abolition of conciliation committees, avoiding naming them to smooth things over, merely targeting the articles of the General Tax Code that organized them, in order to avoid any questioning of the opportunity for their abolition and the reasons for its inaction in implementing the functioning of the committees since their creation.
This abolition of conciliation committees in tax matters represents a major turning point in the conception of an imperial tax administration with exorbitant powers without external control in managing disputes with taxpayers.
These committees, established to promote amicable resolution of tax disputes that the tax administration has never operated, and this without reason, have long been seen as a brake on its enormous powers, rather than as a means to alleviate litigation, avoid resistance to tax payment, and promote tax compliance.
Faced with the evolution of administrative practices and the need to optimize the tax system, it would be appropriate to critically examine their relevance and effectiveness despite their abolition.
We will try to understand the motivations behind this abolition, the consequences for taxpayers and the tax administration, as well as the lack of proposed alternatives to ensure accessible and fair tax justice.
I- Conciliation committees: a major role in a modern tax administration
1. The abolition of special committees in registration law and the conciliation parity committee.
In tax law, these conciliation committees have long been seen as an essential link to play a key role in resolving conflicts between taxpayers and the tax administration.
They were of interest to the taxpayer due to the suspensive nature of their referral and the possibility of benefiting from a contradictory examination of their claims.
Indeed, the taxpayer had a thirty-day period from the receipt of the adjustment confirmation to refer the matter to the committee through the Director General of Taxes with all the documents of the procedure. Thus, the Director General of Taxes, within fifteen days, had to transmit the taxpayer’s request with the control service’s observations to the president of the committee.
The committee acted as an arbitrator between the tax administration and the taxpayer and had two months to render a reasoned opinion on the issues submitted to it.
The major interest was the contradictory nature of the procedure, where the parties were able to present their arguments. These committees allowed for mediation that, although not binding, provided the parties with a framework to find an amicable solution to their disputes.
Unfortunately, the 2025 finance law abolished them in complete confidentiality. A development that raises many questions about its impact on the Senegalese tax landscape. Especially since no reason was given to explain the reasons for their abolition.
In any case, it cannot be that they did not respond effectively to the current challenges of tax law, due to the fact that the Minister of Finance never issued the implementing decrees to allow their operation. This had a negative impact on the amicable resolution of disputes.
Perhaps a choice of administrative simplification was considered due to their ineffectiveness. However, this situation stems from the inertia of the tax administration, which refrained from complying with tax law.
This abolition, which will establish “all litigation,” does not aim to modernize the management of tax disputes. Furthermore, the rise of digital solutions in the new tax policy should have justified the establishment of online mediation platforms, which would better meet taxpayers’ expectations in managing disputes.
Instead of abolishing them, these commissions, perceived as useless because they were not functional, should have been modernized. These suppressions without reason represent a setback from the objective of modernizing the tax administration.
2. Conciliation committees: a tool for dialogue
Conciliation committees were bodies set up to promote a quick and consensual resolution of tax disputes. They brought together representatives of the tax administration, experts, as well as taxpayers or their representatives. Their main mission was to examine disagreements related to taxation or the application of tax standards and try to find an amicable solution.
Conciliation was a preferred way to avoid escalating tax disputes by offering an alternative to long and costly judicial procedures.
Resorting to the committee allowed the parties to reach solutions that, in many cases, prevented litigation before the courts and to establish case law that could strengthen legal predictability and security.
3. Tax commissions: a bulwark against arbitrariness
Conciliation committees were supposed to play a fundamental role in defending taxpayers’ rights. They were intended to allow an impartial evaluation of tax disputes through their mixed composition, bringing together representatives of the administration, taxpayers, and sometimes independent experts. This plurality ensured that decisions were not unilateral and reflected a balanced analysis of facts and law.
It was beneficial for the tax administration: a roundtable where members of the tax administration, taxpayer representatives, and independent experts discuss a tax case.
Their abolition risks concentrating more power in the hands of the tax administration, depriving taxpayers of an intermediate body to assert their arguments. Such centralization goes against the principles of fairness and justice, exposing citizens to unilateral, sometimes arbitrary decisions.
II – Consequences of the abolition of conciliation committees
1. A verified setback in taxpayers’ rights
The abolition of conciliation committees could lead to an increase in tax litigation. Taxpayers may find themselves in a situation where the only possible solutions are judicial remedies, which are longer and more costly. This backward step in tax dispute management could deteriorate relations between the tax administration and taxpayers, making the tax environment more conflictual.
It eliminates any chance of dialogue with the tax administration as they could provide a space for dialogue between taxpayers and the tax administration, often accompanied by mediators or conciliators. This mediation allowed conflicts to be resolved without resorting to formal litigation procedures.
Their abolition deprives taxpayers of a chance to resolve their disputes in a less confrontational framework, which can generate a sense of injustice in the face of the enormous powers of the tax administration. It will also lead to unequal access to justice.
The procedures before the conciliation committees allowed less informed or less equipped taxpayers for a legal battle to express their concerns and find a solution.
Their abolition creates a gap, where only taxpayers with the necessary resources to take legal action can effectively defend their rights. While their operation could ensure a right to enhanced protection and also constitute a control and protection mechanism against tax decisions that can often be unfair or abusive.
2. Repercussions on the workload of the courts
The increase in the number of disputes before the courts will continue to rise. Especially since there is a major problem in the contentious courts, where there are no magistrates specialized in tax litigation, which is highly specific.
The disappearance of conciliation, which acted as a filter for many disputes, risks further overburdening the courts, often already facing long judgment delays that do not take into account the specificity of tax litigation.
This could lead to slower tax justice and a reduction in the effectiveness of judicial response. The lack of access to conciliation committees puts an end to any possibility of resolving tax disputes amicably without immediately resorting to a long and costly judicial procedure.
Their disappearance deprives taxpayers of the opportunity to resolve their disputes informally, quickly, and less constraining. This abolition will result in a heavier procedure: taxpayers must now turn directly to the courts to challenge any tax decision.
This will involve a more complex, costly, and lengthy process, which may discourage some taxpayers, especially the most vulnerable, from fully exercising their taxpayer rights, and in some cases, act as a barrier to efficient tax recovery.
3. A lack of support for small businesses
Small businesses, self-employed individuals, and liberal professions, often the most vulnerable to tax complexities, could frequently be the main beneficiaries of conciliation committees.
The abolition of this resolution path will worsen the legal precariousness of these economic actors, in the absence of an effective and accessible alternative to mediation.
4. A violation of the right to an effective remedy
The inertia of the Minister of Finance in setting up functional conciliation committees has seriously deprived taxpayers of a right to an effective remedy, a fundamental principle enshrined in many international texts, notably Article 8 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights.
By abolishing conciliation committees, the State limits the pre-litigation recourse options available to taxpayers. They are forced to directly approach the contentious courts, a process that is often expensive and time-consuming.
This situation may dissuade many citizens, especially the most modest, from exercising their right to challenge, creating a two-tier tax justice system.
5. A negative impact on citizens’ trust
The abolition of the committees also risks eroding taxpayers’ trust in the tax administration. These bodies were supposed to symbolize a space for dialogue and transparency, where disputes could be resolved without resorting to judicial litigation.
By simply abolishing them, the administration reinforces the idea of a vertical and authoritarian relationship, far from the spirit of collaboration necessary for effective and accepted taxation.
III – Alternatives to replace conciliation committees
The abolition of conciliation committees should not necessarily mean a total abandonment of mediation mechanisms in tax law.
It would be useful for the tax administration to consider strengthening other mechanisms, such as resorting to administrative and tax mediation, which could be an alternative to judicial procedures.
Efforts should also be made to encourage the use of new technologies to facilitate the management of tax disputes, such as online mediation.
These solutions can offer a new form of conciliation while addressing issues of speed and accessibility.
Conclusion
The abolition of conciliation committees in tax law does not reflect a desire to reform and modernize tax dispute management.
However, this reform raises important questions about its concrete impacts on taxpayers and the judicial system.
If the abolition of these committees aims to simplify the process, it would be essential to accompany this evolution with effective alternatives to ensure accessible, quick, and fair tax justice.
It will also be necessary to ensure the need to preserve taxpayers’ guarantees.
The abolition of these committees constitutes a significant regression in taxpayers’ rights. It threatens the principles of fairness, transparency, and justice that should guide any relationship between the administration and citizens.
Faced with these challenges, it is essential to remember that tax recovery efficiency should not come at the expense of taxpayers’ fundamental rights.
Public decision-makers must consider alternatives that reconcile the objectives of the tax administration with the necessary guarantees to protect taxpayers against arbitrariness, preserving an essential balance in a rule of law.
