An empty French property does not automatically stop the annual property-tax bill. For a British owner, the decisive issue is not Brexit, nationality or the fact that the house cannot currently be lived in. The question is whether the property is a house normally intended to be let and whether the vacancy satisfies the narrow conditions for a reduction under Article 1389 of the French Tax Code. In French tax language, that reduction is a dégrèvement, meaning relief or cancellation of the tax for the qualifying period. A genuine long-term rental blocked by serious damage may qualify. A second home, a house retained for personal use, a property bought to renovate before a future letting, or a home left empty because demand is weak is a much harder case. The claim also depends on a precise three-month period, evidence of the owner’s efforts and a statutory deadline. This guide separates French taxe foncière from the separate taxes on vacant homes, explains the evidence a British non-resident should preserve, and sets out what changes when the 2026–2027 vacancy-tax reform takes effect. The practical answer is therefore conditional: an uninhabitable rental can support a claim, but the word “uninhabitable” is the beginning of the evidence, not the legal conclusion.

I. Can a British owner obtain French taxe foncière relief when a rental property is empty or uninhabitable?

A. Who pays taxe foncière, and what does “uninhabitable” actually prove?

The first point is the ordinary liability rule. Taxe foncière sur les propriétés bâties, usually shortened to TFPB, is the French annual tax on built property. The basic rule appears in Article 1380 of the French Tax Code, which provides that the tax is established on built properties situated in France. The fact that an owner lives in Britain, files a UK tax return or visits France only occasionally does not remove French local-property liability.

The person assessed is normally the owner of the property. Article 1400 of the French Tax Code states: “toute propriété, bâtie ou non bâtie, doit être imposée au nom du propriétaire actuel”. In English, every built or unbuilt property is assessed in the name of the current owner. That rule matters when a British owner argues that a former tenant, an estate agent, an insurer or a co-owner should have paid the bill. Those facts may matter to a separate dispute, but they do not by themselves transfer the TFPB assessment.

The tax is also annual. Article 1415 of the French Tax Code provides that the tax is established for the whole year on the facts existing on 1 January. That is why a property can produce a full annual notice even when a tenant leaves later in the year. Article 1389 is a limited mechanism for adjusting the liability for a proven period; it is not a general rule that recalculates the bill every time occupation changes.

Brexit does not create a special exemption for British owners. The French tax administration’s guidance for non-residents and local taxes treats ownership of French property as the relevant connection. The UK Government’s guidance on foreign income may be relevant to rental income, pensions or other income received by a UK resident, but that is a different question from French TFPB. The UK–France double-taxation convention deals with the categories of income, gains and residence covered by the treaty. It should not be presented as a blanket exemption from a French local-property tax.

“Uninhabitable” is therefore a factual description, not a self-operating tax status. A burst roof, dangerous electrical installation, major water damage, a fire, a structural defect or a formal prohibition on occupation may help prove why the property could not be let. The owner still has to establish what the property was intended for, when it became vacant, what part was affected and what reasonable steps were taken. A house that is uncomfortable, outdated or expensive to repair is not automatically a house whose vacancy was independent of the owner’s wishes.

The intended use is critical. Article 1389 is designed for a house normally destined to be rented, not for every empty dwelling. A British owner who uses the property as a holiday home, stores personal belongings there, reserves it for family visits or advertises it only occasionally may have difficulty showing a genuine rental purpose. A property that is bought as a second home remains a second home simply because it needs work. A property retained for sale raises a different question again: offering it for sale is not the same as maintaining it as a normal rental.

The tax administration also distinguishes ordinary residential letting from furnished or seasonal arrangements. Service-Public’s guidance on TFPB explains that a property intended for letting may, in exceptional circumstances, qualify for relief while empty, but that furnished holiday accommodation and seasonal letting do not follow the same route. A British owner should therefore preserve the actual letting project: a long-term tenancy model, a letting mandate, an advertisement for a normal residential lease and correspondence with prospective tenants. A vague statement that the property was “going to be rented” is weaker than a dated and consistent file.

This TFPB question should also be kept distinct from the separate capital-gains analysis that may arise when a British owner sells or restructures a French second home. The cabinet’s related guide, Can a British owner challenge French capital gains tax on a second home after Brexit?, addresses that neighbouring issue; it does not replace the Article 1389 test explained here.

There is a further trap for owners of a partly damaged building. If only one flat, floor or annex is normally capable of being let separately, the claim may concern that separately lettable part. If the owner claims relief for the whole building, the evidence must explain why the affected condition prevented letting of the whole building. A plan, separate meter records, photographs and the rental configuration can be more useful than a general contractor’s sentence saying that “the property needs renovation”.

The starting rule is consequently simple: TFPB remains due unless the owner can fit the facts within a statutory relief, an exemption or another specific correction. Article 1389 is the provision to examine for a rental vacancy. It does not reward mere non-use, and it does not convert every renovation project into a tax-free period.

B. What are the three legal conditions for a dégrèvement under Article 1389?

Article 1389 of the French Tax Code is the central provision. Its opening rule allows taxpayers to seek a reduction of TFPB when a house normally intended for letting is vacant. The text describes the mechanism as a dégrèvement and then imposes three cumulative conditions. The official wording begins: “Le dégrèvement est subordonné à la triple condition”. The three conditions must be tested separately; satisfying one or two is not enough.

First, the property must be normally intended for letting. The court will look at the objective purpose of the property and the owner’s conduct, not just at a late assertion made after the tax notice arrives. Useful evidence includes a professional letting mandate, an advertisement for a long-term unfurnished or furnished residential lease where appropriate, a previous tenancy, an inventory, a tenant’s notice, enquiries from candidates and documented attempts to relaunch the letting. If the owner had never let the property, that does not make a claim impossible, but the evidence must show a real and sufficiently concrete rental plan.

Second, the vacancy or non-operation must be independent of the taxpayer’s will. Serious building defects can support that argument, but the causal chain must be demonstrated. An owner may need to show that the defect made lawful or safe letting impossible, that the owner did not deliberately keep the premises empty, and that repair or resolution steps were taken. The relevant question is not simply whether the owner preferred to wait for an insurer, a builder, a guarantor or a court. It is whether the circumstances made the vacancy unavoidable and whether the owner acted with reasonable diligence in the circumstances.

The Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, put the method succinctly in its decision of 29 April 2015, no. 382322: “le caractère contraignant de la vacance s’apprécie eu égard aux circonstances”. The English meaning is that the compulsory character of the vacancy is assessed in light of the circumstances. The same decision emphasises the steps taken by the owner. That makes a dated repair file especially important for a British owner who is managing a French property from abroad.

The recent decision in Conseil d’État, 28 July 2025, no. 499919 illustrates the danger. The case involved serious defects and a dispute connected with the property. The owner nevertheless failed to show that waiting was legally unavoidable, had not undertaken the works itself and had not tried to let the property even at a reduced rent. The decision records the missing step in the phrase “n’ayant entrepris aucune démarche pour chercher à mettre en location ce bien”. In English, the owner had undertaken no step to seek to let the property. Serious defects did not eliminate the need to prove an active and coherent response.

An older decision, Conseil d’État, 29 January 2007, no. 284113, reached a similar practical point where the owner chose to await the outcome of proceedings rather than establish why the property could not be let or what alternative measures had been tried. The court’s formulation included: “faute pour le requérant d’établir que la vacance de cet appartement était indépendante de sa volonté”. The owner had failed to establish that the apartment’s vacancy was independent of the owner’s will. Litigation, a claim against a contractor or an insurance disagreement can be relevant evidence, but each does not automatically establish involuntary vacancy.

Third, the vacancy must last at least three months and must affect the whole property or a part that can be let or operated separately. The period is not a loose seasonal estimate. The owner needs a start date and an end date supported by documents. Article 1389 calculates relief by complete qualifying months, beginning after the vacancy starts and ending in the month in which the vacancy ends. The claim should show the calculation rather than simply request cancellation of the full annual notice.

The requirement concerning intended letting is not defeated merely because an owner used short letting in the past. In Conseil d’État, 14 April 2008, no. 289978, the court stated: “la seule circonstance que leur propriétaire les loue pour de courtes durées ne fait pas obstacle”. The fact that the properties were let for short periods did not, by itself, prevent them from being regarded as normally intended for letting. The rest of the case still requires careful analysis of the owner’s evidence and the reason for the vacancy. This is not a licence to treat a holiday home as a normal long-term rental without proof.

The court has also drawn a boundary between a genuine rental vacancy and a property held for another purpose. In Conseil d’État, 7 December 1983, no. 32283, the dispute concerned the condition and intended use of premises and the point at which they could be regarded as completed and usable. The decision is a reminder that the physical state of premises and their legal or economic purpose must be examined together. A building that is not yet ready for its intended use, or a project acquired for sale or redevelopment, cannot be moved into the Article 1389 category merely by labelling it “vacant”.

The practical test for a British owner is therefore cumulative:

• Was this property genuinely maintained as a residential rental, rather than as a personal second home or a sale project?
• What precise event made it impossible to rent: damage, a safety restriction, a tenant departure followed by an objectively documented defect, or another external cause?
• Did the vacancy last at least three months, and did it affect the whole building or a separately lettable part?
• What did the owner do during the period: obtain reports, contact the insurer, instruct tradespeople, seek permission, advertise, reduce rent where lawful, or offer an alternative part of the property?
• Can every month and every assertion be supported by a document created at the time?

If the answers are incomplete, the claim may still be worth analysing, but it should not be framed as an automatic exemption because the house was not habitable.

II. How should a British owner prove the claim, meet the deadline and deal with the 2026–2027 vacancy rules?

A. Which documents should be assembled, and how is the French claim filed?

A cross-border claim is won or lost on chronology. A British owner should create one file that allows a French tax officer or administrative judge to understand the property without relying on a telephone explanation. The file should begin with the TFPB notice, the property address, the cadastral references if shown, the owner’s identity and the relevant year. It should then establish the rental purpose, the event causing the vacancy, the repair or resolution process, the qualifying months and the exact sum requested.

The most useful evidence normally falls into six groups.

The first group proves ownership and the tax assessment. Keep the purchase deed or a current ownership document, the annual notice, any notice addressed to an old correspondence address, the French tax account messages and, where relevant, the deed establishing usufruit, meaning a right to use and receive the benefit of property owned by someone else. If the property is held by several people in indivision, meaning co-ownership without a physical division of the property, identify the ownership shares and who is authorised to make the claim. Do not assume that a British address makes the notice defective; prove the concrete effect of any address error separately.

The second group proves the normal rental purpose. This may include a letting-agent mandate, a management agreement, an advertisement, a rent assessment, a previous lease, a tenant’s notice to leave, an inventory, viewing appointments, enquiries, proposed tenancy documents and evidence of rent negotiations. A UK owner should preserve the French version of the advertisement and, if it was marketed through a British agent, the underlying instructions showing that the property was to be let in France. A statement prepared after the tax dispute begins is less persuasive than a series of contemporaneous records.

The third group proves the physical or legal reason for the vacancy. Obtain a dated expert report, insurance report, fire report, water-damage assessment, electrical or gas safety report, municipal notice, building-manager correspondence or contractor quotation. Photographs should carry a date and identify the room or part of the building. If the issue is structural, explain the defect in plain English and attach the French technical document. If the issue concerns a communal building, include the correspondence with the syndic, the French term for the co-ownership manager, and the dates of general meetings or repair decisions.

The fourth group proves diligence. Keep emails requesting quotations, appointments that were offered or missed, invoices, deposits, bank transfers, permits, planning correspondence, insurer notifications, guarantees invoked against a builder, and records of attempts to obtain access. If a British owner could not travel to France, show the local representative, power of attorney, agent or contractor instructed to act. Distance can explain the timing; it does not remove the need for evidence of action.

The fifth group proves the length and scope of the vacancy. Make a month-by-month timeline. Link the tenant’s departure or handover of keys to the first objective evidence of the defect. Record when repair work made the premises safe, when the property was re-advertised and when a new tenant could reasonably move in. If only one unit was affected, attach a floor plan or independent description showing why that unit was separately capable of being let. Utility readings and photographs can corroborate the dates, but they do not alone prove that the premises were legally unlettable.

The sixth group proves the calculation. Identify the annual tax, the qualifying complete months and the proportion attributed to the whole property or separately lettable part. Separate TFPB from the refuse-collection charge, known as the taxe d’enlèvement des ordures ménagères or TEOM, and from any other line on the notice. The French tax administration’s guidance on an unoccupied house confirms that an empty house may remain taxable while explaining the route for an Article 1389 request. Service-Public also explains that relief may extend to the refuse-collection component in the qualifying situation. The notice and the local tax office’s response should determine the final calculation.

The deadline is not open-ended. Article R*196-5 of the Book of Tax Procedures states that the relief requests “doivent être demandés au plus tard le 31 décembre de l’année suivant” the year in which the vacancy reaches the required minimum duration. In practice, the owner should calculate the year in which the three-month threshold was reached, then identify 31 December of the following year. Waiting for a later annual notice can be risky. A British owner should check the version of the provision applicable to the relevant tax year and the instructions on the notice before relying on the deadline.

The claim is a réclamation, meaning a formal tax complaint. Article R*197-3 of the Book of Tax Procedures says: “Toute réclamation doit à peine d’irrecevabilité”. The phrase means that the listed formal requirements are required on pain of inadmissibility. The complaint should identify the tax challenged, explain the facts and legal grounds, state the relief sought, be signed and include the tax notice or the information required by the procedure. A short message stating “the house was empty” is not a reliable substitute for a structured claim with attachments.

The complaint should be sent through the channel identified for the property: the secure messaging system of the French tax account, the competent Service des impôts des particuliers (SIP, the individual taxpayers’ office), or another address expressly stated on the notice. A non-resident owner should not assume that a general local mairie, estate agent or British HMRC office can decide a French TFPB claim. Keep proof of submission, the full attachment list and the date of receipt. If documents are in English, add a clear French summary or translation where it will help the reader identify the evidence. Do not alter original documents; preserve both versions.

Filing a complaint does not automatically postpone payment of the disputed amount. Where cash-flow pressure makes payment difficult, the owner should examine a formal request for a sursis de paiement, meaning permission to defer payment of the disputed portion. Article L277 of the Book of Tax Procedures provides that a taxpayer who challenges an assessment may, if the request is expressly made in the complaint and the amount or basis of the requested reduction is specified, seek “à différer le paiement de la partie contestée”. The procedure can involve conditions or guarantees, so it should not be treated as an informal right to ignore the notice.

The nature of the dispute is also important. Article L190 of the Book of Tax Procedures describes contentious tax complaints as those seeking correction of an error in the assessment or calculation, or the benefit of a right arising from legislation or regulation. An Article 1389 request should therefore identify the legal right, the evidence satisfying each condition and the calculation of the requested reduction. If the tax office refuses or remains silent, the next procedural step depends on the response, the applicable time limit and the administrative-court rules; the owner should preserve the decision and the complete initial file.

B. How do second homes, vacancy taxes and the 2027 reform differ from TFPB relief?

Many disputes become confused because three different ideas are placed under the English word “vacant”. TFPB is the annual property tax due on built property. Article 1389 relief is a limited reduction for a qualifying rental vacancy. The separate taxe sur les logements vacants, or TLV, is a tax on certain homes left vacant in areas covered by the regime. The taxe d’habitation sur les logements vacants, or THLV, is a related local vacancy tax. They have different legal tests, taxpayers and exemptions.

The “25 per cent of market value” discussion belongs principally to the separate vacant-housing taxes and their exemptions, not to the Article 1389 test for a TFPB reduction. The French tax administration’s TLV and THLV guidance explains that major works and the condition of the premises may matter in that separate context. A British owner must not take a works-value threshold from TLV or THLV guidance and present it as a universal safe harbour for TFPB. Conversely, a house that is treated as exempt from a vacant-housing tax is not automatically entitled to an Article 1389 reduction.

The 2026 finance legislation introduces a new framework for vacant residential premises from 2027. Article 108 of the 2026 Finance Act is the official legal starting point. Administrative explanations describe the replacement or combination of the existing TLV and THLV mechanisms through a tax on vacant residential premises, often referred to as TVLH. Whatever label appears on a future notice, the key point for this article is continuity: the 2027 vacancy-tax reform does not turn Article 1389 into an automatic exemption from TFPB. An owner must still analyse TFPB liability and the Article 1389 conditions separately.

The reform makes accurate occupancy information more important. Article 1418 of the French Tax Code governs the declaration of the status of residential premises for French local-tax purposes. A declaration that the house is a second home, a rental, under occupation or vacant should be consistent with the lease file, utility records, advertisements, insurance documents and Article 1389 complaint. A British owner who has been using the property for personal stays should not retrospectively describe it as a long-term rental merely because the TFPB bill is high. Equally, an owner with a genuine rental project should preserve the evidence rather than allow an inaccurate default classification to become the only record.

The reform is also a reminder to distinguish the property-tax issue from UK tax reporting. A British tax resident may have separate UK obligations concerning foreign rental income, a pension, a gain or a property-related transaction. GOV.UK’s foreign-income guidance addresses those income questions. The French TFPB complaint remains a French local-tax procedure, and a successful TFPB dégrèvement does not decide how rental income or a capital gain is treated in the UK or under the double-taxation convention.

Several recurring scenarios can be tested against this distinction.

If the property is a furnished second home used by the owner’s family, the Article 1389 rental-vacancy route is normally weak because the normal purpose is private occupation. A reduction cannot be manufactured by placing a short advertisement online after the tax notice arrives.

If the property was bought in a derelict condition with a plan to renovate and sell it, the owner may have a substantial works file but still lack the required normal rental purpose. The cost and duration of the project do not automatically establish a qualifying vacancy.

If a long-term tenant left and a flood or structural defect then made the home unsafe, the case is stronger. The owner should connect the tenant’s departure, the defect, the report, the repair instructions and the eventual re-letting attempt. The evidence must still show that the property could not reasonably be let and that the owner acted rather than simply waited.

If an agency says that no tenant can be found at the requested rent, market conditions alone may not be enough. A reduced rent, a wider marketing campaign or an explanation of why a lawful reduction was impossible may become important. The question is not whether the owner obtained the preferred rent; it is whether the vacancy was independent of the owner’s will and whether the owner made genuine efforts.

If only a separately lettable flat is affected, calculate the claim on that part and explain the building configuration. Claiming relief for the whole property without proving that the whole property was affected can damage an otherwise credible complaint.

The safest working sequence is to identify the tax line, classify the property’s real purpose, build the vacancy timeline, map each fact to Article 1389, calculate only the complete qualifying months, file before the Article R*196-5 deadline and request a payment suspension expressly if needed. The same file can then be used to answer a future TLV, THLV or 2027 vacancy-tax query, but the legal tests should remain labelled separately.

Conclusion

A British owner can sometimes obtain French taxe foncière relief for an uninhabitable rental property, but the legal route is narrow. Brexit and non-resident status do not create the entitlement. The owner must show that the house was normally intended for letting, that the vacancy was independent of the owner’s will, that it lasted at least three months and that the whole property or a separately lettable part was affected. The recent Conseil d’État decisions show why serious defects, insurance proceedings or an empty building are not enough without a coherent record of action.

The practical priority is a dated evidence file: rental purpose, defect, impossibility of letting, repair efforts, exact months, tax calculation and proof of timely submission. The complaint should rely on Article 1389 and the procedural rules, not on the separate 25 per cent works discussion applicable to vacant-housing taxes. The 2027 reform increases the importance of accurate occupancy information, but it does not replace the Article 1389 analysis. A UK owner should also keep the French TFPB dispute separate from UK income reporting and treaty questions. If the tax office refuses, the refusal, deadline and complete evidence file will determine the next administrative step.

Need a quick opinion on your case

A telephone consultation can be arranged within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm. We can review the French tax notice, the vacancy timeline and the evidence supporting your claim.

Call Maître Reda Kohen on +33 6 46 60 58 22 or contact the firm.