When a British heir discovers French inheritance tax only after a letter has been forwarded from an old UK address, the immediate question is often: “Was the notice valid, and has the appeal deadline already expired?” The answer depends on the document, the address held by the French tax authority, the date on which it is legally treated as notified, and the distinction between the tax itself, late-payment interest and a surcharge.

French law does not make Brexit a general defence to a French tax claim. It does, however, provide specific rules for notification, administrative claims, treaty relief, remission of penalties and payment credit. A British heir may have a strong argument where the administration used an address that it already knew was obsolete, miscalculated the period, added interest before the debt was legally payable, or failed to apply a France–UK inheritance-tax credit. The argument is weaker where the heir never updated the address and the notice was sent to the last address supplied to the service.

This guide explains how to identify the document, preserve the correct deadline and build a challenge without confusing a merits claim with a complaint about enforcement. It also explains why a request for payment by instalments is a different procedure from a challenge to the amount. The analysis is aimed at a British heir, executor or beneficiary dealing with a French estate, including a case in which the estate contains a house or other asset that cannot be sold quickly.

I. French inheritance tax notice sent to an old UK address: can a British heir challenge the deadline and prove service?

A. What document was sent, and when was it legally notified?

The phrase “French inheritance tax notice” can refer to several different documents. They do not have the same legal effect. A notary’s request for funds, a copy of a succession tax return, a letter from the tax office, an avis de mise en recouvrement (formal notice placing a tax debt into collection), and a mise en demeure de payer (formal demand to pay) must be separated before any deadline is calculated.

The starting rule is strict. Article 1701 of the French Code général des impôts (General Tax Code) states that death duties are paid before the registration formality and that no one may reduce or defer payment merely because the amount is disputed, subject to a later restitution claim. The operative sentence is: “Les droits des actes et ceux des mutations par décès sont payés avant l’exécution de l’enregistrement, de la publicité foncière ou de la formalité fusionnée”. The official text is available in the current version of Article 1701 CGI. In practical terms, an heir who disagrees with the calculation should not simply ignore the demand. The heir should identify the undisputed amount, preserve the challenge and consider a statutory payment-credit request.

An avis de mise en recouvrement is different from a reminder. Under Article L256 of the Livre des procédures fiscales (Tax Procedure Code), it is sent when the amount has not been paid at the time it becomes due. It creates an enforceable collection document. The official wording says that “Un avis de mise en recouvrement est adressé par le comptable public compétent à tout redevable” in that situation. This is the document that should be obtained in full, including its references, tax period or event, principal, interest, penalties, date of enforceability and payment instructions. A screenshot of a forwarded envelope is not enough to reconstruct the debt.

The address rule is especially important for a British person who has moved between the United Kingdom and France. Article R256-6 of the Tax Procedure Code allows postal notification at the taxpayer’s home, residence or registered office, or “à la dernière adresse qu’il a fait connaître au service compétent”. It also allows the taxpayer or authorised representative to request a fresh copy of the notice without charge. The official Article R256-6 text should be read alongside the actual address history in the tax file.

That rule creates two very different cases:

• The genuinely last known address. If the heir, executor or representative supplied the old UK address and never informed the competent French service of the new address, the fact that the letter was not personally seen may not invalidate notification. The administration will argue that it used the address legally available to it.
• An address already superseded in the file. If the service had a later address from a declaration, a secure message, a notary’s correspondence, a power of attorney or a previous response, sending the notice to the earlier address may support a challenge to the regularity of the notification. The evidence must show not only that the heir moved, but that the relevant service knew or should have used the later address.

The date of notification also matters. Article R256-7 provides that an avis de mise en recouvrement is deemed notified on the day it is actually delivered, or, where a registered letter could not be delivered because of the taxpayer, on the day of first presentation. The phrase to preserve from the official text is: “L’avis de mise en recouvrement est réputé avoir été notifié”. The official Article R256-7 page sets out the three notification situations, including electronic availability in the online tax account.

This means that “I was living in Britain and did not see the letter” is not, by itself, a complete legal argument. The relevant questions are: which address was used, who supplied it, whether the service had a later address, what the postal record says, whether the notice was returned, whether a representative received it, and whether the administration can prove the first presentation or online availability. A British heir should ask for the complete notice and the proof of dispatch or electronic delivery immediately.

There is another trap. A letter sent by a notary may alert an heir to a debt without being the formal notification that starts the tax-claim clock. Conversely, a later demand from the public accountant may start collection steps even when the heir has never seen the earlier assessment. The correspondence should therefore be placed in chronological order rather than labelled generically as “the tax bill”.

The deadline for the inheritance declaration is a separate matter. Article 641 CGI provides a six-month period where the death occurred in metropolitan France and a one-year period in other cases. Its text states: “Les délais pour l’enregistrement des déclarations que les héritiers, donataires ou légataires ont à souscrire des biens à eux échus ou transmis par décès sont :” It then specifies: “De six mois, à compter du jour du décès, lorsque celui dont on recueille la succession est décédé en France métropolitaine”. The official Article 641 page should be checked against the place of death and the facts of the estate. A late declaration can trigger a surcharge even when the heir only learned about the estate later.

The official Service-Public inheritance-tax guide is useful for checking the taxable estate, the relationship-based allowance and the calculation of the principal. It is a starting point, not a substitute for reading the notice or the treaty. The tax position still has to be tested against the actual domicile, assets, declaration and payment history.

Article 1728 CGI separates the late filing of a declaration from the interest charged on an unpaid amount. It provides that failure to file on time produces a surcharge on the duties, and for declarations under Article 800 the 10% surcharge starts after the statutory period identified by the code. The text expressly says: “Le défaut de production dans les délais prescrits d’une déclaration ou d’un acte … entraîne … une majoration”. The official Article 1728 text is therefore relevant if the notice describes a majoration for late filing.

By contrast, Article 1727 CGI concerns intérêt de retard, meaning late-payment interest. It states: “Toute créance de nature fiscale … qui n’a pas été acquittée dans le délai légal donne lieu au versement d’un intérêt de retard.” The rate stated in the current text is “0,20 % par mois”. The official Article 1727 page also contains the rules for the starting and ending month of the calculation. A challenge should identify whether the administration has applied Article 1727 to an unpaid principal, Article 401 interest to an authorised payment credit, a surcharge under Article 1728, or a collection surcharge under Article 1731. A global demand for “penalties” is not sufficiently precise.

Article 1731 CGI provides a 5% surcharge for certain late payments and states that it does not apply where a late declaration is accompanied by payment of the total duties concerned. Its exact rule begins: “Donne lieu à l’application d’une majoration de 5 % tout retard dans le paiement”. The official Article 1731 page should be compared with the calculation sheet and the payment history. The applicability of a particular surcharge depends on the legal route used by the administration, so the label on the letter cannot replace an examination of its legal basis.

For a British heir, the first written response should preserve every possible argument without making an unsupported admission. It can state that the document was received on a specified date, that the address appears obsolete, that the heir requests the full notice and calculation, that the principal and additions are disputed to the extent identified, and that a payment-credit or remission request is being considered. A short, dated response is preferable to an informal telephone conversation that leaves no proof.

B. Does Brexit or the France–UK inheritance-tax treaty cancel the French charge?

Brexit changed immigration, residence and customs arrangements, but it did not abolish French inheritance tax for British nationals. Nationality is only one fact. The charge depends on the deceased’s domicile, the heir’s position, the location and nature of the assets, the applicable French rules and, where relevant, the France–UK convention on inheritance taxes.

The official French tax authority publishes the France–United Kingdom convention on inheritance taxes. It was signed in Paris on 21 June 1963, approved by Law no. 64-562 of 17 June 1964, entered into force on 30 June 1964 and published by Decree no. 64-789 of 27 July 1964. The convention’s Article 1 says: “La présente Convention s’applique : a) En France, à l’impôt sur les successions prélevé sur les parts héréditaires”. The treaty therefore remains a relevant allocation and credit instrument; it is not a general post-Brexit exemption.

The treaty requires a careful domicile analysis. Where both legal systems could treat the deceased as domiciled in their territory, the convention looks successively at the permanent home, the centre of the closest personal and economic links, habitual residence and nationality. The French text refers to the “foyer permanent d’habitation” and the “centre des intérêts vitaux”. A British passport, a French holiday home or a UK bank account does not by itself answer the treaty question. Evidence may include actual homes, family life, work, health arrangements, correspondence, electoral position, tax returns and the location from which the deceased managed daily affairs.

The location of each asset is also central. The convention’s Article 4 provides that immovables are situated where they are found: “Les immeubles sont réputés situés au lieu où ils se trouvent”. A house in France is therefore not transformed into UK property because the beneficiary lives in Kent or because the purchase funds came from a UK account. Other categories, such as shares, claims, insurance proceeds and partnership interests, require their own classification under the convention. The same official treaty text should be read asset by asset.

The convention can nevertheless change the amount ultimately borne by the family. Article 5 contains rules excluding certain property from the other country’s tax base when the deceased was domiciled in one territory. Article 6 provides for a credit where one country taxes property situated, for treaty purposes, in the other country. The operative French wording is: “elle impute sur l’impôt applicable à ce bien … un crédit égal au montant du droit afférent au même bien”. That credit is subject to the treaty’s conditions and limits. It is not a reason to withhold every French payment while waiting for HM Revenue and Customs.

Article 7 adds a specific treaty timetable for a claim for credit or repayment: “Toute demande d’imputation ou de remboursement d’impôt … doit être présentée dans les cinq ans à compter de la date du décès”. The five-year treaty period does not remove the need to respect the French procedural time limits for challenging a tax assessment or collection act. A prudent file records both dates and explains which route is being used. A treaty credit claim and a challenge to a late-payment calculation may be related, but they are not the same request.

The UK side must also be kept separate. GOV.UK states that UK Inheritance Tax is normally payable by the end of the sixth month after death and that HM Revenue and Customs charges interest when the due date is missed. The official UK overview also explains that a personal representative may claim money back from the estate after probate. Where qualifying assets take time to sell, the GOV.UK instalment guidance describes a separate UK mechanism, including interest and the requirement to pay the balance when assets are sold.

A French notice cannot be cancelled merely because UK Inheritance Tax is also being considered. The correct approach is to map the same asset in both systems, identify the treaty allocation, calculate any available credit and state precisely whether the French request concerns the principal, a surcharge, interest or collection costs. If the treaty credit is absent, the French claim should attach the UK assessment, payment evidence and an asset schedule rather than relying on a general reference to double taxation.

II. How can a British heir challenge the French deadline, request relief or keep the estate from enforcement?

A. Can payment be fractionated or deferred when the estate has no cash?

A lack of cash is a commercial reality, not automatically a legal suspension of French inheritance tax. Article 1717 CGI creates the gateway for a payment credit: “le paiement des droits d’enregistrement et de la taxe de publicité foncière peut être fractionné ou différé selon des modalités fixées par décret”. The official Article 1717 page must be read with the detailed rules in the annex to the code.

There are two different mechanisms:

• Fractionated payment. The duties are paid in several instalments. For the ordinary succession route, Article 404 A provides equal payments, a first payment at the registration stage and a final payment no later than one year after the legal declaration deadline. Where at least 50% of the estate consists of listed illiquid assets, the maximum period is extended to three years and the number of payments can rise to seven.
• Deferred payment. The duty relating to qualifying rights is postponed until a legal event, such as the reunion of bare ownership and life interest or a qualifying balancing payment. It is not a general postponement for every estate that is difficult to sell.

Article 397 of the Annex III to the CGI limits deferred credit to specific cases: a transfer of bare ownership, a preferential allocation or reduction in the situations described by the code, and a surviving spouse’s life interest in a home within the statutory limit. The official text begins: “Le crédit de paiement différé … est applicable aux droits d’enregistrement exigibles en raison des mutations par décès”. The official Article 397 page lists the three categories. A British heir who simply inherited a fully owned French house cannot assume that Article 397 applies.

Article 404 A is more useful where the estate is asset-rich but cash-poor. It says: “Les droits sont acquittés en plusieurs versements égaux”. It then states that the ordinary payments cannot exceed three, with intervals of no more than six months, while the extended regime requires at least 50% of the hereditary assets to be among the non-liquid assets listed by the article. The list includes immovables, non-listed securities, non-exigible claims, business assets, works of art and other categories. The official Article 404 A text is the document to use when testing the 50% threshold.

The test is not simply “the house has not sold yet”. The estate’s composition must be measured at the legally relevant date. An unsold property may qualify as an illiquid asset, but a portfolio of cash, listed shares and bank deposits may reduce the proportion below 50%. A private loan that is not yet due, unlisted shares or a business interest may also matter if the article’s category and evidence fit. The valuation needs to be consistent with the declaration, the notarial inventory and any later tax discussion.

The request must be made in the correct place and at the correct time. Article 399 requires the application to be made at the foot of, attached to, or submitted with the relevant act or declaration, or through the administration’s dedicated online service. It states: “La demande de crédit doit être soit formulée au pied de l’acte ou de la déclaration soumis à formalité soit jointe à l’un ou à l’autre de ces documents”. The official Article 399 page also provides a two-month decision period for the competent public accountant and four months to constitute guarantees after approval.

The guarantee is not a formality that can be left until the first missed instalment. Article 400 provides that guarantees may include real security of at least the amount deferred or a joint guarantee by an approved person or entity. Its text states: “Les garanties peuvent notamment consister en des sûretés réelles d’une valeur au moins égale au montant des sommes”. The official Article 400 page also permits assets used in the calculation of the transfer duties to serve as security, subject to valuation information and annual updates.

The cost of an authorised payment credit is not the same as a penalty for wrongdoing. Article 401 applies interest to fractionated or deferred duties and uses the statutory reference rate for the year before the application, reduced by one third and rounded as the text provides. It states that “les droits et taxes dont le paiement est fractionné ou différé donnent lieu au versement d’intérêts”. The official Article 401 page explains that interest is added to each fraction in a fractionated arrangement and paid annually in a deferred arrangement.

A request for instalments is therefore compatible with a dispute only if the file is structured carefully. The heir can state which amount is accepted, which amount is challenged, why the estate satisfies the non-liquid-asset test, what security is offered and what payment schedule is requested. The heir should not sign a document that treats a contested surcharge as accepted merely to obtain time, unless the legal and financial consequences have been reviewed.

The risk of default is serious. Article 403 provides that failure to constitute security, failure to provide updated valuation material or late payment of an instalment can cause loss of the credit. The rule says: “Le redevable est déchu du bénéfice du crédit”. The suspended duties then become immediately payable, with Article 1727 interest and the Article 1731 surcharge, and those additions are exclusive of the Article 401 credit interest. The official Article 403 page should be attached to any internal payment calendar.

Deferred payment has an even narrower scope. Article 404 B limits the deferred amount to the duties corresponding to the bare ownership value or to qualifying balancing payments. It states that deferred payment “est limité à la fraction des droits correspondant” to those amounts and sets the legal event and maximum period. The official Article 404 B page is particularly important where a surviving spouse has a life interest and the British beneficiary holds bare ownership.

An estate that contains no cash but does not meet the statutory criteria may still require a negotiated administrative solution, a sale, a secured loan or a carefully documented remission request. There is no universal “hardship instalment plan” that replaces the Article 399 application. The French tax authority’s official payment guidance for non-residents confirms that non-resident declarations and payment are handled through the Recette des Non-Résidents and describes fractionated and deferred payment subject to conditions, guarantees and interest.

B. What evidence and procedural claim should the British heir send?

The right route depends on what is wrong. A challenge to the amount or to the legal basis of the interest is a merits claim. A challenge to the way the accountant is trying to collect is a collection claim. A request to waive a final surcharge or interest on hardship grounds is a remission or transaction request. These routes can be coordinated, but one letter should identify them separately.

For a merits challenge, Article L190 of the Tax Procedure Code covers claims seeking correction of errors in the tax base or calculation, or the benefit of a statutory or regulatory right. The provision refers to “la réparation d’erreurs commises dans l’assiette ou le calcul des impositions”. The official Article L190 page is the starting point for a claim that the tax authority used the wrong notification date, wrong asset location, wrong treaty credit or wrong interest period.

The general time limit must then be calculated. Article R196-1 provides that claims concerning taxes other than local direct taxes must normally be submitted by 31 December of the second year following the relevant event, such as the assessment notice or payment. Its opening rule is: “Pour être recevables, les réclamations … doivent être présentées à l’administration au plus tard le 31 décembre de la deuxième année suivant celle”. The official Article R196-1 page lists the possible starting events. Because an inheritance file may contain more than one notice and more than one payment, the safest practice is to identify each act and calculate each possible deadline rather than choosing the latest date without analysis.

If enforcement has already begun, Article L281 applies to disputes about collection. It says that such disputes must be sent to the administration on which the pursuing public accountant depends and that they may concern the form of the act, the obligation to pay, the amount after payments and the enforceability of the amount. Crucially, the text states: “Les contestations relatives au recouvrement ne peuvent pas remettre en cause le bien-fondé de la créance.” The official Article L281 page prevents a common procedural error: using a collection complaint to argue the underlying inheritance-tax calculation.

If the principal is correct but the additions are disproportionate or the estate genuinely cannot pay a final penalty, Article L247 offers a different route. It allows the administration, on request, to grant full or partial remissions of certain penalties and to reduce penalties by transaction where they are not final. It also expressly refers to amounts due for Article 1727 interest. The operative wording includes: “L’administration peut accorder sur la demande du contribuable”. The official Article L247 page should not be presented as an automatic right to erase inheritance-tax principal. It is a discretionary administrative request, and the file should show cooperation, the cause of the delay, the estate’s resources, payments already made and the proposed remedy.

The evidence package should be designed around the legal issue, not assembled as an unindexed bundle. A useful file contains:

• the death certificate, the notarial declaration, the deed or certificate identifying the heirs, and any power of attorney;
• the original declaration, every amended declaration, the payment receipts and the calculation of principal, Article 1727 interest and each surcharge;
• the avis de mise en recouvrement, the mise en demeure, the envelope, postal tracking, returned-mail markings and any electronic-account notification;
• proof of every address used: UK and French address history, change-of-address messages, secure messages, tax-account records, notary letters, courier records and evidence showing when the administration learned of a new address;
• the asset schedule at death, independent valuations, mortgage statements, bank balances, details of unlisted assets and evidence of why a property or claim could not reasonably be liquidated by the due date;
• for treaty relief, the deceased’s domicile evidence, asset location analysis, UK inheritance-tax correspondence, proof of any UK payment and a calculation showing the requested credit;
• for a payment-credit request, the proposed instalment schedule, security proposal, title documents, valuation material and evidence that the 50% illiquid-asset threshold is met where the extended period is claimed.

The address challenge should be factual and narrow. It should identify the date of the move, the address supplied to the French service, the later address and the document proving that the service received it. If the old address was genuinely the last address notified, the letter should not make an exaggerated claim that notification was automatically void. It can instead preserve the argument that the deadline must run from the legally effective notification, request a new copy and ask the administration to explain its calculation.

The heir should also separate actual receipt from legal notification. Article R*256-7 may treat first presentation as notification when a registered letter could not be delivered because of the taxpayer. Evidence that the heir was abroad does not necessarily defeat that rule. A stronger case may exist where the notice was sent to an address that was not the last one known to the competent service, the postal record does not establish first presentation, the letter was sent to an unrelated address, or the administration cannot show the required electronic availability.

The letter should ask for a written position on four questions: the exact legal document and its date; the address and delivery event relied upon; the legal basis and month-by-month calculation of each addition; and the reason any France–UK treaty credit or statutory payment credit was rejected. It should request a suspension or restraint of collection only to the extent legally available, while recognising that filing a merits claim does not automatically make the debt disappear or always suspend payment. The heir should pay the undisputed amount where possible, or present a compliant credit application, rather than allowing the whole file to move silently to enforcement.

A practical timeline can be set out as follows:

Event	Action for the British heir	Document to preserve
Death and opening of the French estate	Record place and date of death, the deceased’s homes and each asset location.	Death certificate, domicile evidence and asset schedule.
Declaration and first tax calculation	Check the six-month or one-year declaration rule and any requested payment credit.	Declaration, receipt, notarial file and Article 399 request.
Notice sent to an old UK address	Request the complete notice, proof of dispatch and the address history held by the service.	Envelope, tracking, returned-mail record and later address evidence.
First demand or enforcement act seen	Choose between an L190 merits claim, an L281 collection challenge and an L247 remission request.	Demand, calculation, payment history and dated response.
Cross-border tax assessed in the UK	Test the convention’s asset-location and credit rules rather than asserting double taxation generally.	HMRC correspondence, proof of UK tax and treaty calculation.

The British executor or heir should send the complaint to the correct French service identified on the notice, using a method that proves receipt. A letter to a notary alone may not constitute a claim to the tax administration. A message through the secure tax account may be useful, but it should be saved as a PDF or screenshot showing the date, recipient and content. Where the non-resident service is competent, the official impots.gouv.fr guidance identifies the Recette des Non-Résidents and gives its contact details; the notice itself remains the best evidence of the service handling the particular debt.

The tax calculation should be audited line by line. Start with the principal: was the heir assessed on the correct relationship, allowances, asset values and debts? Next check the treaty: was an asset treated as situated in the correct country, and was a credit requested within the treaty and domestic time limits? Then check notification and dates: when did the declaration become due, when was it filed, when did the debt become payable, and when was each month of Article 1727 interest counted? Finally check the legal nature of each addition. An Article 401 credit interest charge should not be confused with Article 1727 late-payment interest, and neither should be silently merged with Article 1728 or Article 1731.

The same discipline is needed if the delay arose from a notary or another representative. The tax authority may still pursue the heir or co-heirs under the rules applicable to the estate, while a separate professional-liability issue may exist against the person who caused the delay. The remedy against the tax assessment and the remedy for recovery from a professional should be kept in separate files and pleaded on separate legal bases. A British heir should not assume that a later claim against a notary automatically suspends French tax collection.

Existing guidance on the ordinary payment option should not be used as a substitute for this notification analysis. An instalment request and a claim against a notary concern different legal questions. The present issue is narrower: whether the tax authority’s notice, deadline, calculation or collection route can be challenged when the first document reached an old UK address.

Conclusion

A British heir can challenge a French inheritance-tax demand discovered at an old UK address, but the argument must be tied to a specific defect. The old address may be legally sufficient if it was the last address supplied to the tax service. It may be challengeable if the service already held a later address, cannot prove the notification event, or calculated the claim as though the heir had received a document that was never properly notified. The first step is to obtain the complete avis de mise en recouvrement, delivery evidence and calculation rather than relying on a forwarded letter.

The second step is to classify the complaint. Use the merits route for the principal, treaty credit or interest calculation; the collection route for the form, enforceability or payment history of an enforcement act; and the remission route for a discretionary reduction of final additions. If the estate is cash-poor, consider a fractionated or deferred payment credit at the declaration stage, with the statutory guarantees and interest. A house that has not sold is not automatically enough, and Brexit does not replace the French procedure or the France–UK treaty analysis.

Need a quick opinion on your case?

Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

We can review the French notice, the address evidence, the treaty documents and the response deadline.

Call Maître Reda Kohen on +33 6 46 60 58 22, or use the French office contact form.