10:51 Jan 19 

Actually, it is the "modalités" that put me onto the "repayment" track, i.e. what would have to be paid back to the taxman and how, once it had been decided that the taxpayer wasn't entitled to tax relief that had already been deducted.

10:41 Jan 19 

Just kinda been thinking out loud ;-)

10:37 Jan 19 

Thank you for the context. I find this to be an odd use of "modalités". I may be misreading this but the content does not say "how" something is to happen which would be the normal use of modality. The content is about the basis of entitlement. Either I'm going crazy of the person who drafted this piece got over zealous with the use of "modailty".
Given the nature of the text, I am not sure that you can take issue with the draftsman! You might be stuck with "modality" and have to recover the meaning in the second bit.
"Modality of the basis of entitlement"??? which sounds dreadful. You could drop the "modality" altogether and the cringe factor would drop!

10:34 Jan 19 

I'm going to go back to my original "reconsideration".
Many, many thanks to Nikki for her devotion to my remise en cause!!

10:17 Jan 19 

David,
What I mean "remettre en cause" implies that an existing situation is to change. The subheading is describing the modalites of what is to be considered, not of how to give effect to the change. To that extent, a "remise en cause" comes before any reimbursement. In other words, on what basis might we consider entitlement to reimbursement : does the person qualify? Only then can you reimburse. Thus "consideration" comes into it for me, as with Cécile's reading. A matter has to be considered before a decision flowing form it can be applied : cf. "modalités d'application". "Modalités"appear thoughout this document, 20 times in fact. What is odd here is that 'modality' suggests something operational, an application of some rule to make something happen or come about.
Section 1 lists the specific situations giving rise to a "remise en cause" along with their exceptions ; section 2 (modalités) indicates what has to have occurred in each situation in order for there to be an entitlement to reimbursement.
Do you read it this way too now?

07:34 Jan 19 

http://www.gdp-vendome.fr/upload/wysiwyg/BOI BOUVARD 2010.pd...

You can find the passage in question on page 35 ("Fiche 7 - Remise en cause" begins on p.32).

Having slept on it, I may well be jumping the gun with "repayment" (incidentally, I understand "reprise" to mean "recovery" of the tax relief to which one was not entitled).

I'm not sure what you mean by "Only once entitlement has been determined following a "remise en cause" may any repayment be considered." The "remise en cause" appears to indicate a scenario where entitlement is challenged or even dismissed and, as a result, the tax relief that has been erroneously claimed has to be paid back.

18:15 Jan 18 

More context is helpful. Maybe it's me, but I still feel a piece of the jigsaw is missing. Questions that come to mind :
What is the meaning of "reprise" here?
What is the heading and the nature of the content of the section which precedes the one you have posted here?

18:13 Jan 18 

The problem with rendering "remise en cause" by "repayment" is that this is more about entitlement. Only once entitlement has been determined following a "remise en cause" may any repayment be considered. As I understand this at the moment, this would be a mistranslation. It looks to me like it is one head upstream of any possible repayment..

10:45 Jan 18 

As I suspect AllegroTrans has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, perhaps I ought to provide a little more context.

Basically, the text is saying that tax relief is "remis en cause" if the initial entitlement conditions are not met, or if something occurs during the lease period that results in these conditions not being met.

Where I have placed [...] above, there is a table that gives the "modalités de remise en cause de la réduction d'impôt" in each of the cases I have just outlined. This refers to an increase in the income tax owed by the amount of tax relief obtained.
Also the section already quoted ("Cette remise en cause intervient dans le délai normal de reprise") seems to indicate that the tax relief has to be paid back.

The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced that this is about "repayment" and am really looking for confirmation by the experts out there as I've not come across this meaning of "remise en cause" before.