Facts
On 18 December 2009, the Cantonal Tax Administration (AFC) ruled on the objections filed by A. and B. (the taxpayers or the debtors) against the tax assessment decisions concerning the Federal Direct Tax (DFTA) and the Cantonal and Municipal Tax (ARMA) for the fiscal periods 2001 to 2005. On 9 April 2010, the AFC filed four requests for security measures against A. and B., constituting seizure orders within the meaning of Art. 274 DEBA, based on Arts. 38 and 39 of the Geneva law on the collection and guarantees of taxes, as well as on Art. 169 of the Federal Act on the Federal Direct Tax. These seizure orders, covering bank accounts and plots of land, were executed by the Debt Collection Office of Geneva. The AFC then requested four proceedings for the validation of the seizures, which it ultimately withdrew on 26 September 2014 before requesting them again on 9 December 2015 and 28 November 2016.Considerations
According to case law, the seizure executed on the basis of a request for security measures within the meaning of Arts. 169 et seq. DFTA must be validated in accordance with the rules of Art. 279 DEBA. The opening of the tax assessment procedure is equated to a debt recognition action within the meaning of this provision. The 10-day time limit set out in Art. 279(4) DEBA for requesting the validation proceedings of the seizure runs from the day the condemnatory judgment becomes enforceable, regardless of its entry into legal force.
In the matter of ARMA and DFTA, the tax assessment decisions, the decisions on objections, and the decisions taken on appeals by the cantonal courts are generally enforceable once the appeal period has expired without being used. The appeal to the Federal…