Critiquing a theory by the High Council of Taxation on civil partnership of professional occupations, with an outlook on French Law

Often an agreement is contracted between a physician, notary or other individuals in possession of a professional and exclusive license, and another party, based on each of the parties benefitting from a specific share of the profits, such that the other individual pays the purchasing or renting expenses of at least a portion of the workplace, and is compensated by partaking in the revenues. In a theory by the High Council of Taxation, these types of contracts are not regarded as civil partnership and not liable for the article (101) sub-clause (1) exemption. Based on studies conducted for the present article using the library approach and an analytical-descriptive method, it was found that according to article (571) of the civil law, the mentioned contracts are considered civil partnership, thus the aforementioned individuals are liable for the article (101) sub-clause (1) exemption. It should not be inferred from the definition of article (571) that "common ownership" is not achieved in similar cases. On the other hand, the sub-clause 1 of article "101" is an exception of the principle below, which has been specified in the mentioned article; "Payerchr('39')s income obtained from a section of the revenues of occupations is exempt from payment of taxes to the extent of article 84 exemption. " Therefore, assuming that the aforementioned activity is not considered civil partnership, according to the principle mentioned above, all payers should be granted exemption, and not just one party be liable for exemption.