English term (edited): had been tolled by

In the absence of more context, but in the light of your more recent question (does it follow on?) I suspect that the idea might be that because of the 'interference', things had been (tactically?) delayed in order for some action to be 'timed-out' under the SoL.

Asker's later question (assuming it more or less follows on from this sentence) says that "The tax authorities would have nonetheless been deemed within the statute of limitations period under the obstruction of the audit limb of the Resolution." This would seem to suggest that the first sentence is intended to imply that the statute of limitations would have run out, had it not been for this 'obstruction of the audit' limb.

I'd like to thank Francis Marche for taking the trouble to suggest this as a correction to my original suggested formulation in FR; my only reason for posting here at all was to try and suggest an alternative reading, based on the additional knowledge gleaned about the wider context.

It just means that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended for that period of time. This also came up in a comment a couple of seeks ago.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 days (2014-08-27 06:47:05 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

The chosen answer is absolutely wrong. "Tolling a statute of limitations" is basic, American legal English. It has nothing to do with "ingerence". Ask any American lawyer-- ask twenty bishops, for that matter. I can seeit won't make a difference. I'm not adding this comment to try to convince anyone on this site to change the outcome-- I realize that's a lost cause. I just want to warn translators who might choose to rely on this post, that the chosen answer is simply wrong.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 days (2014-08-28 05:20:56 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Thanks Sylvie-- glad the misunderstanding is straightened out. What I find a little strange about this particular question and answer session on proz.com is that none of the people who commented apparently thought to google "toll the statute" or "tolling the statute". There are plenty of ghits and many of the answers are correct and very clear. See, e.g. "Tolling the Statute

Statutes of limitations are designed to aid defendants. A plaintiff, however, can prevent the dismissal of his action for untimeliness by seeking to toll the statute. When the statute is tolled, the running of the time period is suspended until some event specified by law takes place. Tolling provisions benefit a plaintiff by extending the time period in which he is permitted to bring suit." at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tolling the St... What this does for me, I'm sorry to say, is raise a fundamental doubt about the entire process on which proz.com is based. How many other "approved" or "chosen" answers to French-English legal translation questions are incorrect?