France: French Tax Update – March 2014

Last Updated: 12 March 2014
Article by Nicolas André

In this French Tax Update, we will catch up on the recent developments pertaining to two generally hot topics under French tax law: the controlled foreign companies ("CFC") rules, and the abuse of law (abus de droit, "AoL") procedure. More specifically, we will focus on recent case law affecting the CFC safe harbor rules, and on the advisory opinions issued during the last few months by the Committee in charge of AoL matters (Comité de l'Abus de Droit Fiscal, "AoL Committee"), inter alia with respect to management packages and certain financing transactions.

Recent Case Law Affecting French CFC Rules

During the last 15 months or so, French tax courts have issued various decisions that have, potentially, a significant impact on the application of the French CFC rules (article 209 B of the French tax code (Code général des impôts, "FTC")).

Basic Operation Of The French CFC Rules

The French corporate tax rules are on a strict territoriality basis, i.e., only profits generated in France are liable to tax.

Article 209 B introduces an exception to the above territoriality principle, and it may be summarized as follows:

  • if a French corporate taxpayer owns, directly or indirectly, more than a certain threshold (currently 50 percent) of the share capital or voting rights or financial rights of a non-French entity; and
  • such non-French entity benefits from a so-called "privileged tax regime" in the jurisdiction where it is located (i.e., its effective tax rate in such jurisdiction is more than 50 percent lower than the effective French tax rate which would have been applicable in similar circumstances); then
  • the French corporate taxpayer would be deemed to receive fully taxable dividends, from such non-French entity, in proportion to its participation in the latter.

When the non-French entity is located within the European Union, a specific safe harbor rule applies whereby article 209 B is applicable only if the participation of the French corporate taxpayer, in the above entity, is an artificial scheme targeting the avoidance of French tax legislation.

When the non-French entity is located outside of the EU, article 209 B is disapplied if the French taxpayer can evidence that the principal purpose and effect of the operations, effected by the above entity, do not consist of a transfer of profits to a tax-privileged jurisdiction ("General Safe Harbor"). Article 209 B provides that, inter alia, such evidence is deemed to be provided when the non-French entity has, principally, an effective industrial or commercial activity in the jurisdiction where it is located ("Deemed Safe Harbor")

Case Law Interpretation Of The Safe Harbor Rules

The case law referred to, at the beginning of this section, concerns the interpretation of the above safe harbor rules, and although they relate to a period where the wording of article 209 B of the FTC was a bit different, the resulting principles are valid under the current version.

The case law refers to two different situations, both involving a French bank:

  • In one case, the potential CFC subsidiary, based in Guernsey, had a private banking activity; the local effective rate of taxation was about 4 percent, and, accordingly, article 209 B would have been applicable unless the safe harbor rule could protect the French bank.
  • In the other case, the potential CFC subsidiary, based in Hong Kong, was active in the currency markets of the surrounding region; the effective taxation rate in Hong Kong was de minimis, i.e., as with the Guernsey entity, article 209 B would have been applicable if the safe harbor rule was not an effective defense.

Without going into the procedural details, the cases were first decided by the lower courts, and afterward, the Supreme Court (Conseil d'Etat) voided these decisions and referred them back to the lower courts. They were finally decided in summer of 2013.

In both cases, the initial query was whether, for the purposes of the safe harbor rule, one should refer to the "purpose" or to the "effect" of incorporating the non-French entity in a tax privileged jurisdiction.

The position of the French tax authorities was that only the "effect" should be taken into consideration, i.e., if the presence in the non-French jurisdiction enabled a reduction in tax liability (as defined by article 209 B), then any question about the motivation or "purpose" of such presence would be irrelevant. Actually, the position of the French tax authorities seemed correct on the basis of the then-current version of article 209 B, which was indeed only referring to the effect (NB: the current version refers to the object and the effect). However, the Conseil d'Etat decided that, despite the wording of article 209 B, one should refer to the motivation of the taxpayer for the purpose of the safe harbor rule.

Indeed, the Conseil d'Etat took the view that, from a constitutional perspective, the taxpayer should be in a position, when challenged on the basis of an anti-abuse legislation (such as article 209 B), to provide the evidence that its operations were not principally tax motivated despite the local low effective rate of taxation. In other words, if only the effect was taken into account (i.e., the low tax rate), it would have been extremely difficult for the taxpayer to be protected under the safe harbor rule. Once this principle was established by the Conseil d'Etat, the lower court decided as follows:

  • In the case of the Guernsey subsidiary of the French bank, the lower court took the view that the subsidiary was targeting international individual clients who were attracted by the banking and tax legislations applicable in Guernsey; in other words, these international clients, given their specific needs, would not have been attracted by the French bank acting from France. Interestingly, the lower court added that even if some of these clients were French, and they used French-sourced funds, the above reasoning should not be modified given that article 209 B targets the motivation of the French bank and not the motivation of its clients.
  • In the case of the Hong Kong subsidiary of the French bank, the lower court took the view that the subsidiary was managing the Asian currency position of the banks' affiliates in the region (specifically by investing in the Korean market), and that such an activity could not have been effected from France given the time difference and the required expertise that may only be found locally. As with the Guernsey situation, the French tax authorities were arguing that some of the clients and funds available to the subsidiary were potentially of a French origin, and the court decided that even if these allegations were true, they would be irrelevant for the purposes of the application of the safe harbor rule.

While it is too early to decide whether there has been a definitive change in terms of application of article 209 B (from a safe harbor rule perspective), one can expect certain tendencies:

  • contrary to the position of the French tax authorities, the courts would take into account the motivation of the French taxpayer (and not only the effect of being located in a low tax jurisdiction); and
  • the Deemed Safe Harbor would be less used in the future as it would imply that the relevant activity is performed in the jurisdiction where the entity is located; typically, in the Guernsey situation discussed above, the General Safe Harbor was more efficient given the bank's international clients (who are obviously not located in Guernsey).

AOL Committee Opinions

Pursuant to the AoL procedure, the French tax authorities may, under certain conditions, recharacterize a given transaction if they can prove that it is either fictitious or exclusively tax motivated. If the tax authorities attempt to recharacterize a given transaction under the AoL procedure, the dispute may be forwarded (either by the taxpayer or the tax authorities) to the AoL Committee.

While the AoL Committee is an independent body whose object is to issue nonbinding advisory opinions, such opinions are in practice closely followed as they (i) shift the burden of the proof, for any subsequent litigation, to the party with which the AoL Committee did not agree, and (ii) are generally viewed as influential on practitioners and tax courts (inter alia because of the qualifications of the AoL Committee members: three judges from the administrative supreme court, a tax lawyer, a public notary, a chartered accountant, and a university professor).

We develop below two of the most noteworthy topics covered by the opinions issued by the AoL Committee from October through December 2013 ("Q4 Opinions"). 

Management Packages In LBO Transactions

In various Q4 Opinions, the AoL Committee has once again addressed the income tax treatment applicable to the capital gains realized by managers who are transferring shares carrying attached warrants (actions à bons de souscription d'actions, "ABSA") received as part of a management package within the context of a given LBO transaction.

In several of the cases reviewed by the AoL Committee, the managers of a company about to be bought out had subscribed ABSAs in the holding company that was to carry the buyout. The number of shares that a given warrant could give right to was inter alia contingent upon the internal rate of return of certain other financial investors in such holding company.

As in many other similar cases, the French tax authorities have challenged the capital gains subsequently realized upon the transfer of the ABSAs, on the basis that the managers were actually benefitting from a profit-sharing scheme rather than capital gains realized by an actual investor, and that the income derived from such scheme was to be subject to personal income tax as employment income (in the cases at hand, the ABSAs had further been assigned to the plans d'épargne en actions of the managers, i.e., a type of shares savings plan entitled to a favorable capital gains tax regime).

Unlike certain opinions issued earlier in 2013, the Q4 Opinions sided with the French tax authorities.

The AoL Committee indeed found that while (i) the managers had funded the ABSAs on their own and (ii) such funding was substantial compared to their global income, certain features of the management package should lead to the characterization of employment income: (a) the provisions of the ABSAs were such that the exercise conditions of the warrants amounted to an allocation among the managers of a pre-determined sum, and (b) the managers had a de facto guarantee of recovering their initial investment, with the additional opportunity of realizing a substantial gain.

Interestingly, the AoL Committee disregarded the fact that the managers were not effectively guaranteed against the loss of their investment, and that the sale price always reflected the market value of the relevant warrants.

Allegedly Tax-Optimized Structured Financings

The Q4 Opinions have also addressed two allegedly tax-optimized structured financings.

Facts. The features of the first financing ("Transaction 1") may be summarized as follows (steps 2 through 8 all took place on the same day, that is, the day after step 1 took place):

  1. A French company X ("Company X") successfully completed a takeover bid over a US company Y ("Company Y"), the holding entity of several US operating companies;
  2. A US Company Z ("Company Z") was subsequently set up in order to modify the financing of such takeover bid and issued three types of shares: preferred shares carrying increased voting rights ("A PShares"), preferred shares carrying no voting rights but entitled to cumulative priority dividend rights that may be carried forward ("B PShares"); and ordinary shares ("C Shares");
  3. Company Y contributed certain US operating companies to Company Z and received the A PShares ("Contribution");
  4. Company Z and Company Y, respectively, undertook to issue and subscribe the B PShares ("B PShares Subscription Right");
  5. A French Company TP ("Company TP") and Company Y entered into an assignment and assumption agreement pursuant to which Company Y transferred the B PShares Subscription Right to Company TP;
  6. Company TP subscribed the B PShares and the C Shares using a shareholder loan from Company X;
  7. Company TP and Company Y entered into a forward sale agreement ("FSA") pursuant to which Company TP undertook to sell, and Company Y undertook to buy, all of the B PShares held by Company TP into Company Z, within a period of five years renewable once, and for an agreed price;
  8. Company Y and Company Z entered into a guaranty agreement ("GA") pursuant to which Company Y undertook to make available to Company Z the funds needed in order to distribute the dividends attached to the B PShares;
  9. The funds contributed by Company TP to Company Z, by subscribing the B PShares, were then made available to Company Y so that its parent, Company X, could reimburse the financing debt pertaining to the aforementioned takeover bid (Company Z inter alia provided (i) a loan to certain US operating companies so that they can distribute to Company Y dividends that had been voted before the Contribution, and (ii) a loan to an affiliate of Company Y which then on-loaned the same amount to Company Y).

The features of the second financing ("Transaction 2," together with Transaction 1 the "Transactions") may be summarized as follows (steps 2 to 4 took place within the same week):

  1. Company X transferred the cash pooling activities of its group to company B, a subsidiary located in Belgium ("Company B"), inter alia by increasing the share capital of Company B (NB: Company B used the notional interest legislation in Belgium);
  2. Company B provided a loan to Company TP ("Loan");
  3. Company TP reimbursed to Company X a shareholder loan for the same amount;
  4. Company X increased the share capital of Company B by the same amount;
  5. Eighteen months later, Company TP reimbursed the Loan to Company B by using a shareholder loan from Company X, and Company B redeemed its share capital for the same amount.

The French Tax Authorities' Position. The French tax authorities challenged Transaction 1 on the ground that it amounted to a wholly artificial arrangement whose sole purpose was to allow Company TP to benefit from the French participation-exemption regime with respect to the dividends received from Company Z B PShares.

The tax authorities inter alia elaborated that the FSA essentially was a collateralized stock loan in respect of which Company TP was not exposed to any Company Z shareholder risk as (i) the reimbursement of its investment into the B PShares was guaranteed by the FSA, and (ii) the payment of the dividends was guaranteed by the GA. The tax authorities thus considered that the dividends distributed in respect of the B PShares were to be recharacterized as interest payments, and thus to be subject to corporation tax under the standard applicable regime.

The tax authorities also mentioned that Transaction 1 was treated, for US tax purposes, as an indebtedness resulting in the payment of the deductible interest.

The French tax authorities challenged Transaction 2 on the ground that it amounted to a wholly artificial arrangement whose sole purpose was to allow the deduction of interest expenses to Company TP.

The tax authorities inter alia elaborated that (i) the combination of the capital increase of Company B, the Loan, and the reimbursement of the shareholder loan essentially was a share capital increase of Company TP, (ii) Company B was not autonomous vis-à-vis Company X in terms of material means and decisional process, and (iii) Company B was not bearing any financial risk with respect to the financings provided (the risk being borne by Company X as head of the group).

The Taxpayer's Position. With respect to Transaction 1, Company TP articulated the following arguments:

  • Given the absence of third parties in the capital of Company Z, Company TP and Company Y had a common interest in jointly controlling Company Z, i.e., the investment of Company TP in the B PShares carried an actual shareholder intent;
  • As Company Z is a Delaware corporation, accordingly its corporate life and the characterization of the dividends it pays to its shareholders may be analyzed only from a Delaware corporation law perspective;
  • Under a general  French tax law principle, a given company is free to choose its financial structure (debt versus capital);
  • Transaction 1 did not amount to a collateralized stock loan as Company Y did not subscribe the B PShares and could not have remitted them as collateral;

With respect to Transaction 2, Company TP considered that the tax authorities have not demonstrated its exclusive tax motivation as Transaction 2 had no consequence on its taxable result (i.e., Company TP substituted the interest paid to Company X by the interest paid to Company B).

The AoL Committee Q4 Opinions. With respect to Transaction 1, the AoL Committee found that, while formally documented as an equity investment of Company TP into Company Z, it essentially was a contractual arrangement whose purpose was the refinancing of Company Y by Company TP through a stock loan with the B PShares posted as collateral for such loan.

The AoL Committee consequently considered that the tax authorities rightfully applied the AoL procedure as Transaction 1 should be regarded as a wholly artificial arrangement whose sole motivation was to allow Company TP to benefit from the French participation-exemption regime with respect to the dividends received from Company Z while the same dividends were viewed as deductible for US tax purposes.

In order to justify its opinion, the AoL Committee listed the following points:

  • The Contribution actually benefitted to Company Y as a result of the various loans provided by Company Z;
  • The B PShares were (i) initially supposed to be subscribed by Company Y and (ii) eventually transferred to Company Y pursuant to the FSA;
  • Company TP undertook to sell the B PShares to Company Y within a period of five years, renewable once, pursuant to the FSA;
  • The rights attached to the B PShares, together with the FSA and the GA, effectively gave to Company TP rights similar to those that Company TP would have had under a stock loan collateralized by the B PShares;
  • There was no economic motivation to Transaction 1, whose sole purpose was to reduce the group taxable result in France while maintaining a deductible interest for US tax purposes;
  • Company Z had no employee, was not carrying out any activity, did not invest into any asset other than the US operating companies received upon the Contribution, did not receive any dividends from such companies, and was managed by Company Y directors (whereas Company TP did not have any representative at the Board of directors of Company Z).

With respect to Transaction 2, the AoL Committee found that the tax authorities could not avail themselves of the AoL procedure as the taxable result of Company TP was not reduced as a result of the operations carried out (i.e., the same amount of interest would have been deducted by Company TP with or without Transaction 2).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Nicolas André
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions