For a foreign group, closing a French subsidiary is not the same operation as closing a branch, striking a company off a foreign register, or simply stopping French trading. When the foreign parent owns every share or shareholding interest in the French subsidiary, French law may offer a faster route: the transmission universelle du patrimoine, usually abbreviated as TUP. In English, this is a universal transfer of the subsidiary’s assets and liabilities to its sole corporate shareholder, followed by the disappearance of the subsidiary without a conventional liquidation.

That apparent simplicity creates a serious risk. A TUP does not erase unpaid tax, employee claims, commercial disputes, guarantees, regulatory exposure or unknown liabilities. It also does not become effective on the day the foreign parent signs its resolution. Creditors have a statutory opposition period, and since 1 October 2024 the starting point is tied to publication of the dissolution in the Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales (BODACC), the official bulletin of French civil and commercial announcements. A filing made too early, a defective corporate resolution, or an opposition sent in the wrong form can leave the parent with an avoidable dispute and a French subsidiary that has not yet legally disappeared.

This article addresses the narrower question that is often missed by general guides: how can a foreign parent dissolve a 100%-owned French subsidiary by TUP, and what must it prove before the French company is removed from the French registers? It covers the eligibility test, the creditor timetable, the Guichet unique filing operated by the French National Industrial Property Institute (INPI), the tax and social-security file, contracts, employees, evidence and the practical response to a creditor opposition. It complements, rather than repeats, our broader guide on closing a French company from abroad.

I. Can a foreign parent use a TUP to dissolve its French subsidiary?

A. When does a 100% foreign-owned French subsidiary qualify for a TUP?

The first question is not whether the parent is French. It is whether the French subsidiary has one sole shareholder and whether that sole shareholder is a legal person. A company incorporated in another country is ordinarily a legal person for this purpose, provided its existence, legal form, ownership and authority to act can be demonstrated. The French subsidiary may be a SASU, meaning a simplified joint-stock company with one shareholder, an EURL, meaning a single-member limited-liability company, or another corporate form capable of having a sole corporate shareholder.

The ownership must be complete. The foreign parent must hold all shares or shares carrying the entire capital of the French subsidiary when the dissolution decision is made. A minority investor, a bare owner separated from an usufructuary, an unresolved transfer, or an option that has not yet been exercised can make the file unsuitable for a TUP. If two legal persons still hold shares, the operation is not a TUP. The group may need a prior transfer of the remaining interests, a conventional liquidation, or a merger procedure instead.

The distinction between a sole corporate shareholder and a sole individual shareholder is decisive. Article 1844-5 of the French Civil Code states that the third paragraph governing the universal transfer does not apply when the sole shareholder is an individual. The parent must therefore be a company, not the founder personally, even if the founder controls the foreign company. A foreign holding company, limited company, corporation or equivalent entity can satisfy the legal-person condition, but the French registry may request documents proving that equivalence.

The governing legal text is Article 1844-5 of the French Civil Code. It provides: En cas de dissolution, celle-ci entraîne la transmission universelle du patrimoine de la société à l’associé unique, sans qu’il y ait lieu à liquidation. In English, dissolution transfers the whole patrimony to the sole shareholder without a liquidation. The same provision adds: Les créanciers peuvent faire opposition à la dissolution dans le délai de trente jours à compter de la publication de celle-ci. The foreign parent should read those two sentences together. The absence of a liquidator does not mean the absence of a creditor-protection stage.

The shareholder decision must also be valid under two legal systems. The foreign parent should check its articles of association, board or shareholder approval rules, signature powers, quorum and any reserved-matter provisions. The French subsidiary should check the identity of its registered representative, the wording of its own articles and the corporate records proving that the parent owns all of the capital. A resolution signed by a person who has no authority under the parent’s law is not cured by the fact that the parent owns 100% of the French subsidiary.

For a foreign parent, the evidence pack usually includes a recent extract from the parent’s home-country register, its articles or equivalent constitutional document, the resolution approving the TUP, proof of the signatory’s authority, the French subsidiary’s current Kbis and a capitalization table. A Kbis is the official extract from the French Commercial and Companies Register, known in French as the registre du commerce et des sociétés or RCS. Depending on the country of origin and the receiving authority, foreign documents may need an apostille or legalization and a translation by a French sworn translator. That question should be solved before the Guichet unique filing, not after a rejection.

The French company’s public identity must also be checked against the wider group structure. The parent’s legal name, registration number, registered office, directors, beneficial owners and representative in France should be consistent across the resolution, the French RCS record, the National Register of Enterprises (RNE), bank records and tax accounts. A mismatch between the foreign registry extract and the French beneficial-owner filing can trigger a request for regularization even if the ownership is commercially obvious.

The TUP should therefore be treated as the closing phase of a corporate-structuring project. A foreign founder preparing a new French operation can use the firm’s French company formation and corporate structuring page as the relevant pillar, but the parent should not confuse a formation checklist with a TUP checklist. Formation proves how the subsidiary begins. TUP planning proves how the group ends the subsidiary while preserving the parent’s ability to answer for what the subsidiary did.

B. What does the foreign parent inherit, and what does the TUP not solve?

A TUP is universal. The foreign parent does not select only the bank balance, the customer contracts or the intellectual-property portfolio. It receives the subsidiary’s assets and liabilities as a legal whole. The review must therefore cover cash, receivables, stock, fixed assets, software, trademarks, domain names, customer deposits, supplier advances, tax receivables, shareholder loans, guarantees, leases, insurance claims, litigation, employment obligations and any contingent liability recorded only in correspondence or a legal file.

The parent should prepare a passif map, meaning a written schedule of all present and potential liabilities, before approving the dissolution. The schedule should identify the creditor, legal basis, amount, due date, security, dispute status, limitation period, supporting document and person responsible for the next action. An unknown liability is not excluded merely because it was absent from the last accounts. A tax audit notified after the resolution, a customer claim arising from an earlier delivery, a warranty call, a personal-injury claim by an employee or a social-security reassessment may follow the patrimony into the parent.

The general rule that dissolution leads to liquidation is expressly displaced for a TUP. Article 1844-8 of the French Civil Code states that dissolution produces liquidation except for the cases covered by Article 1844-4 and the third paragraph of Article 1844-5. The commercial rule in Article L. 237-2 of the French Commercial Code similarly says that a company is in liquidation upon dissolution, “except in the case provided for in the third paragraph of Article 1844-5”. That is why a TUP has no ordinary liquidator selling assets and paying creditors one by one.

It does not follow that every contract can be treated as if nothing changed. The parent should review contracts containing an intuitu personae clause, a change-of-control clause, a consent requirement, a prohibition on assignment, a regulatory approval condition or a termination right on dissolution. Commercial leases, public contracts, bank facilities, insurance policies, distribution agreements, licenses, franchise agreements, data-processing arrangements and government grants need particular attention. A universal transfer may transfer rights and obligations, but the contract can still require notice, consent or a new registration.

Employees require a separate review. Employment contracts, payroll, accrued holiday, bonuses, employment disputes, health and safety records and collective obligations should be reconciled before the effective transfer. A parent that intends to continue the French activity should map the receiving employer, payroll registration, work locations and social-security reporting. A parent that intends to stop the activity should budget every termination and final payroll cost. The TUP is not a mechanism for removing an employee’s accrued claim.

The TUP is also not automatically a tax-neutral merger. The Conseil d’État, in decision no. 314046 of 10 November 2010, explained that a TUP resulting from dissolution without liquidation “ne procède pas d’une opération de fusion, au sens que revêt ce terme en droit civil comme en droit des sociétés”. The decision is available on Légifrance. The distinction matters because the tax treatment depends on the precise operation, the assets transferred, the accounting entries, the group structure and the conditions of any election or tax regime. A parent should not insert the phrase “tax-neutral TUP” into its resolution without a tax analysis.

Article 210 A of the French Tax Code contains a merger regime, but the existence of a 100% parent-subsidiary relationship does not by itself prove that every TUP satisfies that regime. The relevant Article 210 A should be read with the tax administration’s position and the Conseil d’État decision above. The file should identify whether the parent is in the European Union or outside it, whether the French company belongs to a tax group, whether assets remain in France, whether a French permanent establishment is retained and whether latent gains, losses or provisions require special treatment.

Recent decisions show why the passif review is not theoretical. In a decision identified as Commercial Court of Créteil, case no. RG 2025F01941, the creditor was the French public tax-recovery service. The official decision records a claim predating the dissolution and states that a transfer to an English company risked making recovery “plus coûteux et aléatoire”. The decision is accessible through the official Cour de cassation decision database. A foreign parent should assume that a French tax authority can oppose a TUP if it can show a founded claim and a real recovery risk.

The Cour de cassation’s Commercial Chamber also addressed fraud in decision no. 25-12.706 of 6 May 2026. The official decision states that a creditor relying on the principle that fraud corrupts everything must show that the beneficiary company implemented a process capable of depriving the opposition right of its effectiveness. The relevant passage refers to the need for a process “ayant permis de priver d’efficacité la faculté d’opposition”. The decision is available on the Cour de cassation website. The practical lesson is not that a TUP is presumed fraudulent. It is that publication, timing and the conduct of the foreign parent can become central evidence if a creditor says that the operation was designed to defeat recovery.

Before signing, the parent should answer five questions in writing:

• What assets and liabilities will be transferred, including claims not yet quantified?
• Which contracts require notice, consent, amendment or a replacement contracting party?
• Which employees, creditors, tax authorities and social-security bodies must receive a final statement?
• What evidence proves that the parent can pay or guarantee each known liability?
• Which documents must remain available after the French company is removed from the RCS and the RNE?

If the company is already unable to pay its due debts with its available assets, the foreign parent should stop and analyse French insolvency law before attempting a TUP. A TUP is not a substitute for a safeguard, restructuring, judicial reorganisation or liquidation procedure. The parent’s objective may be to simplify a healthy group, but the legal test must be applied to the subsidiary’s actual solvency and creditor position on the date of the decision.

II. What must the foreign parent do before the French company disappears?

A. How do the BODACC, creditor-opposition and INPI deadlines run?

The timetable begins with a valid decision by the foreign parent and ends only after the opposition period, any opposition proceedings, the effective transfer and the French radiation formalities. The parent should maintain a single chronology showing the date of each resolution, publication, filing, registry notice, BODACC publication, creditor communication, court act and radiation request. “The company was closed on the resolution date” is an unsafe description unless it is qualified by the statutory opposition stage.

The first operational step is to draft the shareholder resolution. It should identify the French subsidiary by legal name, form, registered office and registration number; identify the foreign parent by legal name, home-country registration number and registered office; state that the parent owns all of the capital; approve dissolution with universal transfer; appoint or authorize the person responsible for filings; and address the effective date by reference to the creditor-opposition period. The resolution should also authorize the parent’s representative to answer the French registry, the tax service and any court.

The second step is publication and filing. The dissolution notice must be published in a French authorized legal-announcement medium, often called a support habilité à recevoir des annonces légales or SHAL. The dissolution must also be declared through the Guichet unique, the secure online portal for French business formalities operated by INPI. INPI is the Institut national de la propriété industrielle, the French National Industrial Property Institute. The parent should keep the signed resolution, publication certificate, filing receipt, payment receipt and any regularization message in one controlled data room.

Since 1 October 2024, the dissolution giving rise to a TUP must also be published in the BODACC. The official government explanation states that the purpose is to improve creditor information and to prevent a company from choosing a less visible publication and delaying the registry steps. The update is described in the official Service-Public notice on BODACC publication. A foreign parent should therefore verify the actual BODACC entry rather than relying only on a screenshot from the legal-announcement medium.

The starting rule is now explicit. Article 8 of Decree no. 78-704 of 3 July 1978, in its version effective from 1 October 2024, states: Le délai d’opposition prévu au troisième alinéa de l’article 1844-5 du code civil court à compter de la publication de la dissolution faite au Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales. The parent must record the BODACC publication date and calculate the thirty-day period from that event. If there are several notices or an apparent correction, the file should be checked by counsel before anyone treats the period as expired.

A creditor does not need to prove that the debt is already the subject of a final judgment. Article 1844-5 allows a creditor to oppose, after which a court may reject the opposition, order repayment, or require guarantees if the company offers guarantees that the court considers sufficient. The parent should therefore identify disputed and contingent claims, not just undisputed invoices. A tax audit, a contractual notice of default, an unpaid employee claim or a documented guarantee call may be more important than the balance-sheet total.

The form of the opposition is critical for a commercial company. In decision no. 22-10.331, the First Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation considered an opposition filed through a registered letter to the registry and an assignment issued after the thirty-day period. The official decision can be read here. The ruling is commonly used for the practical proposition that a creditor must bring the matter before the competent commercial court by a proper judicial application, such as an assignment or a joint application, within the period; a registered letter alone is not a safe substitute.

The procedural logic is consistent with Article 2241 of the French Civil Code, which provides: La demande en justice, même en référé, interrompt le délai de prescription ainsi que le délai de forclusion. The English meaning is that a judicial application, including an application in urgent proceedings, interrupts a limitation or preclusion period. The foreign parent should not advise a creditor to send an email or letter to a registry as if that communication automatically preserves the creditor’s rights. Conversely, the parent should not ignore a letter that may announce an imminent court filing.

If an opposition is filed, the parent should immediately collect the court summons or application, the proof of service, the creditor’s underlying documents and the dates of publication. The response should deal separately with admissibility, the existence and amount of the claim, the date of the claim, the recovery risk and the proposed remedy. Depending on the case, the parent may offer a payment, a bank guarantee, a security, an escrow arrangement or another form of sufficient guarantee. It should not promise a guarantee that its home-country directors have not approved.

The TUP is not completed merely because the parent believes the creditor is wrong. Article 1844-5 states that the transfer and disappearance of the legal person occur after the opposition period, or after the opposition has been rejected at first instance, or after repayment or guarantees have been completed. The parent should obtain the formal evidence of the relevant event before asking the French registry to complete the radiation. An internal closing memo is not a substitute for the court order or the certificate issued in the French process.

When no opposition has been made within the period, the parent must still complete the radiation and update formalities. The official Service-Public page on dissolution by TUP describes the resolution, legal notice, Guichet unique declaration, BODACC step and the subsequent radiation. The INPI closure guidance explains that the filing is made through the online business-formality portal and that an incomplete or irregular file can be sent back for regularization. The parent should submit the radiation only after the TUP conditions and the opposition result are evidenced.

The registry record matters after the transfer. Article L. 123-9 of the French Commercial Code states that a registrable act cannot be invoked against third parties or public administrations unless it has been published in the register. The text says: La personne assujettie à immatriculation ne peut, dans l’exercice de son activité, opposer ni aux tiers ni aux administrations publiques […] les faits et actes sujets à mention que si ces derniers ont été publiés au registre. A foreign parent should therefore reconcile the BODACC publication, the RCS record, the RNE record and the final Kbis rather than treating the first online status as conclusive.

The parent should preserve the precise date on which the French company ceased to have legal personality. That date affects litigation, enforcement, tax filings, bank instructions, employment administration, customer notices and the authority of signatories. The Cour de cassation, in decision no. 18-15.475, examined a German corporate shareholder’s attempt to rely on a TUP while employees sought collective proceedings. The decision is available on the official court database and illustrates why the timing of the transfer and the status of creditor claims must be established before the parent closes the file.

B. Which tax, accounting, contract and evidence files must be closed from abroad?

The foreign parent’s final work is not limited to a registry receipt. It must close the French subsidiary’s tax, accounting, social, banking and contractual records in a way that allows the parent to answer a question several years later. The parent may be outside France, but the French tax authority, a former employee, a customer, a bank, a regulator or a court may still ask for the subsidiary’s records in French.

Corporate tax planning starts with the date of the TUP and the date of the last French accounts. Article 221 of the French Tax Code provides, for a dissolution, that corporate income tax is established under the conditions referred to in Articles 201, paragraphs 1 and 3. The text begins: En cas de dissolution […] l’impôt sur les sociétés est établi dans les conditions prévues aux 1 et 3 de l’article 201. The parent should coordinate the final profit-and-loss calculation, provisions, unrealized gains, losses carried forward, tax-group consequences and any French permanent-establishment question with the accountant handling the last return.

Article 201 of the French Tax Code contains the cessation reporting framework and requires taxpayers under a real-accounting regime to submit the real-profit declaration within sixty days in the circumstances covered by the article. The parent should not treat “sixty days” as a universal answer for every TUP filing without identifying the exact tax regime, the event that starts the clock and the forms required through the company’s online tax account. The safe method is to record the effective TUP date, obtain the tax accountant’s written filing calendar and preserve the submission acknowledgements.

Registration tax and documentary formalities must be checked separately. The French tax administration explains that acts concerning the life of a company, including dissolution, are generally registered within one month in the competent service and that special rules apply when a contracting party is not resident in France. Its cross-border guidance is available on impots.gouv.fr. Article 638 A of the French Tax Code should also be checked where the operation is not recorded by an act in the way the tax administration expects; the current text is on Légifrance.

Value-added tax must be closed with the same discipline. The parent should identify the final French VAT return, outstanding reverse-charge entries, customer credits, VAT on assets, bad-debt adjustments, intra-group transfers and any VAT number that remains active while a refund or audit is pending. A TUP does not turn an unresolved VAT position into a private matter of the foreign parent. The tax team should document which entity files, which entity pays, which entity receives a refund and which entity retains the books supporting the return.

Social-security and payroll obligations should be reconciled before the last bank transfer. If the French subsidiary employed people, the file may include the Déclaration sociale nominative (DSN), the monthly electronic social declaration, payroll slips, employer contributions and a certificate from URSSAF. URSSAF is the French network that collects most employer and social-security contributions. The employer should close wages, accrued paid leave, bonuses, expense claims, benefits, termination documents and disputes. The parent should identify who will answer a future URSSAF request after the French subsidiary is removed from the register.

The current commercial rules show that social and public-law certificates can be part of the formal closing environment. Article R. 237-7 of the French Commercial Code, in force since 1 October 2024, refers to the social-security certificate mentioned in Article L. 243-15 and to the tax-related certificate required in the public-procurement framework for the documents it lists. That provision belongs to the ordinary liquidation provisions, so it must not be mechanically presented as a universal TUP attachment. Its practical value is that it shows why the parent should obtain and preserve evidence of social and tax regularity instead of waiting for the registry to ask for it.

Contracts and assets need a transfer ledger. The ledger should list the contract, counterparty, governing law, termination or consent clause, transferred obligation, notice date, new payment details and post-transfer owner of the document. For intellectual property, check French trademark registrations, domain names, software licenses and ownership evidence. For real estate or a lease, check whether the TUP triggers a notice, registration, tax or consent requirement. For customer data, check the controller or processor role, retention period, hosting location and the person in the group responsible for responding to data-subject requests.

Bank accounts should not be closed on the same day as the shareholder resolution. The parent needs a controlled transition for unpaid invoices, payroll, tax debits, refunds, direct debits, chargebacks and security deposits. The bank should receive a clear instruction signed by an authorized representative after the legal transfer is effective and after the parent has confirmed where the funds should go. If the bank requests updated corporate records, the response should include the final TUP evidence, not only a foreign parent letter.

The accounting transfer should distinguish French book values, tax values, currency conversion and intercompany balances. The parent should reconcile the French subsidiary’s shareholder loan, accrued interest, management fees, dividends, service invoices and foreign-exchange differences. A journal entry in the parent’s home-country accounts does not replace the French closing accounts or the evidence of the legal transfer. The group should retain the French trial balance, general ledger, bank statements, fixed-asset register, receivables aging and tax reconciliation.

A foreign parent should also test the operation against pending proceedings. Search the French court and administrative files for customer disputes, employment claims, tax litigation, social-security disputes, intellectual-property claims and enforcement measures. The parent should give its French counsel a written list of every claim, even if the local team considers it weak. If a creditor is already preparing an opposition, completing the TUP without addressing the claim can create the appearance of an attempt to make recovery more difficult.

Recent French decisions make the evidence point concrete. Decision no. 25-12.706 of 6 May 2026 concerns a TUP challenged as an obstacle to contractual rights and examines the allegation that the operation was carried out in fraud. Decision no. 22-10.331 addresses the procedural form of creditor opposition. Decision no. 18-15.475 examines the interaction between a TUP and collective proceedings. Together with the 2026 Créteil decision involving a claim by the French tax-recovery service against a transfer to an English company, they create a practical warning for foreign groups: the parent must be able to prove the timing, the authority, the notice and the economic reason for the transaction.

The evidence pack should contain at least the following items:

• the French subsidiary’s final Kbis and the last RNE information;
• the foreign parent’s current registry extract and constitutional documents;
• proof that the parent owned 100% of the French subsidiary’s capital;
• the parent’s valid corporate resolution and proof of the signatory’s authority;
• the French legal-announcement certificate and the BODACC publication;
• the Guichet unique filing receipt, INPI messages and any regularization response;
• the opposition-period calculation and a certificate or registry evidence of non-opposition;
• every creditor opposition, court act, payment, guarantee or order;
• final corporate-tax, VAT, payroll and social-security filing acknowledgements;
• the contract and employee-transfer ledger;
• the bank closing or transfer instructions and final account statements; and
• the parent’s accounting entries and a memorandum explaining the legal and tax treatment.

Documents from the foreign parent should be stored in their original form, with a French translation where required, and with the date and source of every electronic copy. The parent should identify one person who can access the archive after the subsidiary disappears. That person should know where the French records are stored, which French lawyer or accountant holds a copy, who receives future tax correspondence and how a former employee or creditor can be directed to the correct entity.

The parent should also plan for a rejection or request for regularization from INPI. The official procedure permits the authority to ask for corrections, additional evidence or a new signature step. A rejected filing is not the same as a completed TUP, and a second filing with a new date can create a new publication and a new opposition calculation. The parent should preserve the first filing, identify the exact defect, correct the same corporate history and ask French counsel to verify whether a new publication is required.

Finally, the foreign parent should communicate the operation to the people who need accurate information without creating a misleading announcement. Customers, suppliers, employees, banks, insurers, landlords, tax advisers and litigation counsel should receive the effective date, the successor entity, the payment instructions and the person responsible for open matters. The communication should not say that every debt has disappeared. The correct message is that the French subsidiary’s patrimony has been transferred to its sole corporate shareholder under a TUP, subject to the legal effects and ongoing obligations that apply to the transferred claims and records.

Conclusion

A foreign parent can use a TUP to dissolve a French subsidiary without a conventional liquidation only when the French company has one sole corporate shareholder and the parent owns the entire capital. The operation transfers the whole patrimony, not only the assets the group wants to keep. Its legal effect is delayed by the creditor-opposition mechanism, and since October 2024 the BODACC publication is central to the calculation of the thirty-day period.

The decisive work is therefore procedural and evidential. The parent must prove ownership and authority, publish and file correctly, monitor the BODACC, respond to any court opposition, complete the INPI and RNE steps, close tax and social records, protect employees and contracts, reconcile the bank and accounting files and preserve a French-language evidence pack. A TUP can simplify a group’s structure, but only a properly documented TUP makes that simplification defensible when a creditor, the tax authority or a former employee asks what happened to the French company.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Our lawyers can review the foreign parent’s TUP resolution, creditor timetable, tax file and INPI evidence before the French subsidiary is removed from the register.

Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or send the documents through our contact form.