Your French subsidiary has just received an avis de vérification, the formal notice that the French tax office is opening a tax audit of its accounts. If you run the group from London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, the letter feels doubly alarming: it is written in French, it refers to procedures you have never met, and it sets clocks running that you cannot see. The financial stakes are immediate. French corporate tax, called IS for impôt sur les sociétés, applies at a standard rate of 25 percent, and every euro of profit the auditor adds back to the taxable result is taxed, charged late-payment interest and very often hit with a surcharge for deliberate fault. This guide explains exactly how a foreign parent prepares the audit, protects the contradictory debate with the auditor from abroad, answers the proposition de rectification, the formal reassessment notice, within the 30-day deadline, and contests the bill through the hierarchical appeal, the departmental commission and the administrative courts. SAS means société par actions simplifiée, the flexible French joint-stock company most foreign founders choose. CGI means Code général des impôts, the French Tax Code. LPF means Livre des procédures fiscales, the Tax Procedure Code that governs every audit step. BOFiP means Bulletin officiel des finances publiques, the administration’s published doctrine. The auditor is the vérificateur; the audit of accounts is the vérification de comptabilité; the reassessment is the redressement. Read this way, the French procedure is not a maze but a sequence of dated moves, and a group abroad can play every one of them.
I. Your French Subsidiary Has Just Received an Avis de Vérification: How a Foreign Parent Prepares the Tax Audit
A. What the Audit Notice Must Contain and Which Papers a Foreign Group Gathers Within Days
The audit starts with a letter, and that letter is not a courtesy: it is a procedural act whose defects can annul everything that follows. Under article L. 47 of the LPF, an audit of accounts cannot begin until the taxpayer has been informed by the sending or delivery of an audit notice, and the guarantees go further: “Cet avis doit préciser les années soumises à vérification et mentionner expressément, sous peine de nullité de la procédure, que le contribuable a la faculté de se faire assister par un conseil de son choix.” In plain English, the notice must state which years are audited and must expressly remind the company, on pain of nullity of the whole procedure, that it may be assisted by counsel of its choice. The same article adds: “L’avis informe le contribuable que la charte des droits et obligations du contribuable vérifié peut être consultée sur le site internet de l’administration fiscale ou lui être remise sur simple demande.” The charter of the audited taxpayer’s rights and obligations can be read on the tax administration’s website or obtained on simple request, and a foreign parent should ask the subsidiary’s accountant for it on day one, because it sets out the timetable of the audit in the administration’s own words. The first practical move is therefore a three-point check the day the letter arrives: which financial years are listed, whether the right to counsel is expressly mentioned, and who inside the group is appointed to answer the auditor. If the notice covers years you believed closed, remember the time limit in article L. 169 of the LPF: “Pour l’impôt sur le revenu et l’impôt sur les sociétés, le droit de reprise de l’administration des impôts s’exerce jusqu’à la fin de la troisième année qui suit celle au titre de laquelle l’imposition est due.” For corporate tax the administration’s right to reassess runs until the end of the third year following the year for which the tax is due, so an audit opened in 2026 routinely covers 2023, 2024 and 2025. Years beyond that limit can only be reopened in narrow cases such as hidden activity, which is why the opening letter’s list of years deserves a careful comparison with the limitation clock before any document is handed over.
The second move is assembling the file the auditor will ask for, because the law puts the company’s books at the centre of the control. Article L. 13 of the LPF provides: “Les agents de l’administration des impôts vérifient sur place, en suivant les règles prévues par le présent livre, la comptabilité des contribuables astreints à tenir et à présenter des documents comptables.” Tax officers verify on the premises, following the rules of the procedure code, the accounts of taxpayers required to keep and present accounting records. Concretely, the French subsidiary must be ready to present its general ledger, journals, invoices issued and received, bank statements, payroll records, fixed-asset register and the filed corporate tax returns with their appendices for each audited year. A foreign group should add three layers that auditors of subsidiaries systematically request. First, the intra-group paperwork: service agreements with the foreign parent, transfer-pricing documentation where the group falls within the documentation duties, management-fee invoices with proof the services were actually rendered, loan agreements and interest calculations for any shareholder loan, and dividend resolutions. Groups that recharge head-office costs should already recognise the danger zone described in our guide on management fees challenged by the French auditor, because undocumented monthly fees are the single most reassessed item in audits of foreign-held companies. Second, the corporate documents: Kbis, the official company identity extract issued by the commercial court registry (greffe), articles of association, minutes of the meetings that approved the audited accounts, and the beneficial-owner register entry. Third, anything in a foreign language should be lined up for translation, because the auditor works in French and an English-only contract file slows the debate and invites misunderstanding; having key agreements translated or at least summarised in French by counsel keeps the discussion on substance rather than language. Day-one organisation also means freezing routine destruction: no archiving purge, no mailbox clean-up, no midst-audit change of accounting software without preserving the old data, since a missing or unusable file can turn a routine audit into a reconstruction of turnover from bank movements, which almost always ends higher than the declared figures.
The third move is appointing the team and the channel. The subsidiary’s French accountant (expert-comptable) will carry the technical discussion, but a foreign parent needs its own eyes: a French tax lawyer who receives copies of every auditor letter the day it arrives, a single group contact authorised to approve answers, and, where the amounts justify it, a short scoping call with counsel to rank the risks by size, typically transfer pricing and fees first, then VAT positions, then payroll and withholding items. Our pillar guide on setting up a company in France as a foreign founder, from bank account to Kbis to VAT gives the formation-to-operation background, and our companion piece on French corporate tax for foreign owners, IS at 25 percent, branch versus subsidiary, and paying on time gives the rate and calendar background the whole audit will refer back to, since the reassessment is computed by adding profit back and taxing it at the standard rate stated in article 219 of the CGI: “Le taux normal de l’impôt est fixé à 25 %.” That rate is why preparation pays: each line of defence that survives saves a quarter of the disputed amount plus interest and surcharges, and each concession should be priced at that same quarter before it is granted.
B. How the On-Site Audit Runs and How a Group Abroad Keeps the Debate Genuinely Contradictory
The audit itself takes place at the company’s premises, which for a small subsidiary often means the accountant’s office, and it unfolds as a series of visits during which the auditor examines the books, asks written and oral questions, and closes with a synthesis meeting. The defining legal feature of the French audit is that it must be contradictory: the auditor has to hold a genuine oral and contradictory debate with the taxpayer before notifying any reassessment, and the absence of that debate is one of the few defects that can wipe out the whole reassessment. The Conseil d’État, France’s supreme administrative court, framed the rule in its decision of 20 February 2023, ninth chamber, no. 461286 (JB3C), published on Legifrance, concerning a bar-brasserie whose accounts had been rejected as non-probative: “Il appartient en conséquence à la société requérante d’apporter la preuve qu’elle a été privée d’un débat oral et contradictoire avec le vérificateur.” Where the audit takes place at the accountant’s office at the company’s own request, it is for the company to prove it was deprived of an oral and contradictory debate with the auditor, and in that case the proof failed because the file showed questions put in writing, a formal record of missing stock inventories, sixteen on-site interventions and a synthesis meeting held with the company’s lawyer present. The lesson for a foreign group is practical rather than theoretical. Do not let the audit become a silent correspondence between the auditor and the accountant while the parent learns of it months later. Insist that counsel attends the key meetings, if necessary by video link with a colleague on site, that every oral answer of substance is confirmed in writing the same week, and that the closing synthesis meeting is prepared like a hearing: a short memo per open point, the exhibits numbered, the concessions and refusals minuted. A debate documented this way not only protects a future nullity argument, it very often reduces the reassessment itself, because an auditor who receives a reasoned, exhibit-backed answer during the audit regularly drops the weakest adjustments before writing the formal notice.
Distance imposes four disciplines that Paris-based groups take for granted. First, speed of circulation: auditor letters must reach the foreign decision-maker within days, not at month-end, because the general time limit of article L. 11 of the LPF runs from receipt: “le délai accordé aux contribuables pour répondre aux demandes de renseignements, de justifications ou d’éclaircissements et, d’une manière générale, à toute notification émanant d’un agent de l’administration des impôts est fixé à trente jours à compter de la réception de cette notification.” Thirty days from receipt is the default deadline for answering any request for information or clarification, so a letter that sleeps two weeks in a Paris mailbox before being scanned to the parent has already consumed half the defence time. Second, consistency between entities: the auditor will compare the subsidiary’s story with the parent’s invoices, the group’s transfer-pricing master file and sometimes information obtained from foreign administrations, so the parent’s finance team must align its documents with the subsidiary’s answers before they go out, never after. Third, language: the director who does not speak French should never meet the auditor alone; every meeting goes through counsel or a mandated representative, and every commitment is validated in writing in French. Fourth, knowledge of the local office: audits of Paris subsidiaries are handled by the Paris tax directorate (DRFiP de Paris, the regional public-finance directorate), whose auditors process large numbers of foreign-held companies and know exactly where the weak files sit. A group that presents, from the first visits, an organised file with translated key contracts, reconciled intra-group flows and a named contact who answers within days signals that the reassessment, if any, will be fought line by line, and that signal changes the auditor’s cost-benefit analysis on marginal adjustments.
Two guardrails close the audit phase. The first is the protection against a second audit of the same years and taxes. Article L. 51 of the LPF states: “Lorsque la vérification de comptabilité ou l’examen de comptabilité, pour une période déterminée, au regard d’un impôt ou d’une taxe ou d’un groupe d’impôts ou de taxes, est achevé, l’administration ne peut procéder à une vérification de comptabilité ou à un examen de comptabilité de ces mêmes écritures au regard des mêmes impôts ou taxes et pour la même période.” Once an audit of accounts for a given period and given taxes is completed, the administration cannot audit the same records again for the same taxes and period, subject to narrow exceptions such as fraud or a follow-up on facts revealed later. A foreign parent should therefore treat the closing of the audit as a legal event: keep the closing documents, note exactly which taxes and periods were covered, and invoke the rule if a new team returns on the same ground. The second guardrail is knowing when the audit phase ends and the written reassessment phase begins. An audit with no adjustment ends with a notice that no reassessment is envisaged; an audit with adjustments continues with the proposition de rectification, and from that moment the timetable hardens and the centre of gravity moves from the auditor’s desk to written observations, appeals and, where needed, the courts. Understanding that switch is what turns Part II of this guide from theory into a checklist.
II. You Have Received a Proposition de Rectification: How to Reply Within 30 Days and Contest From Abroad
A. How to Answer the Reassessment Notice and Trigger the Hierarchical Appeal and the Departmental Commission
The proposition de rectification is the document that turns audit discussions into a quantified threat: for each adjustment it states the legal basis, the facts, the computation and the resulting tax, interest and penalties. Its legal regime is strict, and the strictness protects the taxpayer. Article L. 57 of the LPF requires: “L’administration adresse au contribuable une proposition de rectification qui doit être motivée de manière à lui permettre de formuler ses observations ou de faire connaître son acceptation.” The notice must be reasoned so that the taxpayer can submit observations or accept, which means a motivation so thin that no serious answer is possible is itself a ground for discharge. Before the company answers or accepts, article L. 48 of the LPF adds a second lock: “l’administration doit indiquer, avant que le contribuable présente ses observations ou accepte les rehaussements proposés”, in the article L. 57 proposal or the article L. 76 notification, “le montant des droits, taxes et pénalités résultant de ces rectifications.” The administration must state, before the taxpayer responds, the amount of duties, taxes and penalties resulting from the adjustments. A foreign parent reading the notice should therefore verify three things before drafting a single argument: that every adjustment carries its legal basis and computation, that the totals of tax, interest and each penalty are stated, and that the penalties are individually justified rather than applied as an automatic accessory. Where motivation is missing on a head of adjustment, counsel says so expressly in the observations, because courts do discharge adjustments whose statement of reasons does not allow the taxpayer to understand and discuss them, and the point, once made in time, cannot be cured afterwards by explanations served at a later stage of the procedure.
The observations themselves must be filed within the 30-day period of article L. 11, and a group abroad should treat that deadline as absolute. The same article offers one breathing space: on the taxpayer’s request received before the deadline expires, article L. 57 of the LPF provides that “ce délai est prorogé de trente jours.” In practice counsel requests the extension systematically and immediately upon receipt, which buys the time to collect foreign evidence, obtain translations and have the parent’s finance team validate the figures, while keeping the initiative. The content of the observations follows a fixed architecture that French tax litigators use in every case. Each adjustment gets its own section: reminder of the auditor’s reasoning, statement of the facts with exhibit references, legal discussion tied to the exact article invoked, a quantified alternative computation where the principle is conceded but the amount is disputed, and an express request, typically maintained as a fallback, for referral to the departmental commission where the item falls within its remit. Exhibits are numbered, bank-paid and dated; intra-group services are proved by contracts, work product, time records and payment flows rather than by affirmations; and the letter closes with a global summary table so the superior reading it sees the financial effect of each concession at a glance. The tone stays professional and factual throughout: the observations are the first exhibit of the future court file, and a judge reading them two years later should find a reasonable company explaining its business, not a group lecturing the administration.
Two administrative appeals then open without going to court, and both are free, quick and fully available to a company whose owners live abroad. The first is the hierarchical appeal (recours hiérarchique): the taxpayer asks for the file to be reviewed by the auditor’s superior, then, if the disagreement persists, by the departmental interlocutor, an independent senior official who hears both sides. The official service-public guide on tax disputes describes this route as the way to bring the case before the auditor’s superior, and its page on amicable disputes with the tax administration is the starting point every foreign group should bookmark. The hierarchical meeting is often the most cost-effective moment of the whole dispute: a well-prepared one-hour discussion, with counsel presenting the exhibit file and the parent’s finance director available by video to explain the business, settles or halves a surprising share of adjustments, because the superior has the authority to abandon fragile points that the auditor felt obliged to notify. The second route is the departmental commission for direct taxes and turnover taxes, which article L. 59 of the LPF opens in these terms: “Lorsque le désaccord persiste sur les rectifications notifiées, l’administration, si le contribuable le demande, soumet le litige à l’avis soit de la commission des impôts directs et des taxes sur le chiffre d’affaires prévue à l’article 1651 du code général des impôts”. Where disagreement persists, the administration, if the taxpayer so requests, submits the dispute for an opinion to the commission for direct taxes and turnover taxes, a joint body of administration and taxpayer representatives. The request must be made in the observations, it covers questions of fact such as valuations, pricing and the reality of services rather than pure questions of law, and the commission’s opinion, though advisory, carries real weight: the administration follows it in most cases, and where it does not, its opinion becomes a useful exhibit before the court. A foreign group should therefore never waive these two stages by silence or delay; they cost nothing, they suspend nothing but they frequently reduce the bill, and they build the reasoned record on which the court case will later rest.
B. How to Suspend Collection, File the Claim and Take the Case to the Administrative Court
Once the administration confirms the adjustments, in whole or in part, the reassessed tax is placed in collection, and a foreign parent discovers the second shock of French procedure: the tax must in principle be paid even while it is contested. The escape route is the suspension of payment attached to the formal claim (réclamation). Article L. 277 of the LPF provides: “Le contribuable qui conteste le bien-fondé ou le montant des impositions mises à sa charge est autorisé, s’il en a expressément formulé la demande dans sa réclamation et précisé le montant ou les bases du dégrèvement auquel il estime avoir droit, à différer le paiement de la partie contestée de ces impositions et des pénalités y afférentes.” A taxpayer disputing the basis or amount of the assessment may, if it expressly so requests in its claim and states the amount or basis of the relief sought, defer payment of the contested part of the tax and related penalties. Two conditions are therefore non-negotiable: the claim must expressly request suspension, and it must quantify the relief claimed. Above the amount fixed by decree, the debtor must provide guarantees, typically a bank guarantee, which a foreign group should negotiate with its French bank as soon as the claim is filed rather than after the first enforcement notice. The claim itself must be filed on time: article R*196-1 of the LPF requires that “Pour être recevables, les réclamations relatives aux impôts autres que les impôts directs locaux et les taxes annexes à ces impôts, doivent être présentées à l’administration au plus tard le 31 décembre de la deuxième année suivant celle, selon le cas”. Claims on taxes other than local direct taxes must reach the administration no later than 31 December of the second year following the relevant event, usually the collection notice. Missing that date kills the entire dispute regardless of its merits, which is why counsel diaries it the day the assessment arrives and why a parent abroad should demand written confirmation that the claim, with its express suspension request, has been filed.
If the administration rejects the claim expressly or stays silent, the dispute moves to the administrative court (tribunal administratif), on appeal the administrative court of appeal (cour administrative d’appel, CAA), and on points of law the Conseil d’État. The gateway deadline is stated in article R. 421-1 of the Code of administrative justice: “La juridiction ne peut être saisie que par voie de recours formé contre une décision, et ce, dans les deux mois à partir de la notification ou de la publication de la décision attaquée.” The court can only be seised by an action against a decision, within two months of notification or publication of the contested decision. The whole case then runs on written pleadings, which is good news for a group abroad: no one needs to fly to Paris for a hearing, representation runs through a French lawyer, and the parent’s role is to supply evidence and approve strategy. Before the court, the standard of reasoning illustrated by the Conseil d’État’s decision of 4 April 2025, third and eighth chambers combined, no. 461220 (Conversant, formerly Valueclick), published on Legifrance, deserves attention. The court upheld a court of appeal that had found a reassessment sufficiently reasoned where the notice set out the reconstruction method and the 80 percent expense ratio applied to reconstructed receipts: “c’est sans erreur de droit que la cour administrative d’appel en a déduit que cette proposition de rectification était suffisamment motivée au regard des exigences de l’article L. 76 du livre des procédures fiscales”. The message cuts both ways: courts do not demand that the notice disclose every internal working, but they do require a method the taxpayer can actually discuss, so challenges should target missing methods and figures, not the mere brevity of the notice. On substance, the corporate-tax dispute of a subsidiary almost always turns on the territoriality rule of article 209 of the CGI, under which taxable profits are computed “en tenant compte uniquement des bénéfices réalisés dans les entreprises exploitées en France”, taking into account only profits made in businesses operated in France. Deductions for payments to the foreign parent survive only if the expense was incurred in the interest of the French business and priced at arm’s length, which sends the litigator straight back to the contracts, deliverables and pricing file assembled during the audit. Penalties must be fought on their own ground: article 1729 of the CGI attaches to inaccuracies and omissions a surcharge of “40 % en cas de manquement délibéré”, 40 percent for deliberate fault, rising to 80 percent for abuse of law or fraud, and each level has its own legal conditions the administration must prove. A court file that contests the principle, the computation, each penalty and the interest, head by head, with the audit observations as its backbone, gives the foreign shareholder the fullest possible recovery, and the suspension obtained with the claim holds collection at bay while the case runs, provided the guarantees stay in place. Groups whose audit reveals deeper trouble, such as a subsidiary that can no longer pay its debts, should read in parallel our guide for directors of French companies that cannot pay their debts and face a management ban, because a tax dispute must never be allowed to drift into an insolvency fault with its own 45-day filing logic.
Conclusion
A tax audit of a French subsidiary is a procedure with dated moves, and a foreign parent that learns the sequence keeps every remedy. Check the audit notice against article L. 47 the day it arrives, because a missing statement of the audited years or of the right to counsel can annul the procedure. Build the file before the auditor asks: complete accounts, intra-group agreements with proof of real services, translated key contracts, and a single group contact who answers within days, since the default 30-day clock of article L. 11 runs from receipt. Live the contradictory debate through counsel, attend the synthesis meeting prepared, and close the audit knowing exactly which years and taxes are covered so the article L. 51 shield against a second audit can be invoked. When the reassessment notice arrives, test its reasoning against articles L. 57 and L. 48, answer within 30 days with a systematic extension request, and trigger the hierarchical appeal and the departmental commission, the two free stages that most often reduce the bill. Then claim with an express suspension request under article L. 277, diary the 31 December bar of article R*196-1, and take a well-documented file to the administrative court within the two months of article R. 421-1, contesting the tax, the computation and each penalty head by head. The Conseil d’État’s JB3C and Conversant rulings show courts that enforce both sides of the bargain: the taxpayer must prove any denial of debate, and the administration must serve a notice whose method can actually be discussed. Played this way, from London or Singapore as surely as from Paris, the French audit becomes what it should be: a dispute about figures, fought on paper, with the law setting the rules for both sides.
Need a quick opinion on your case
Send us the audit notice or the reassessment proposal today: a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm to check your deadlines, price each adjustment at the 25 percent rate, and freeze collection while you contest. Our firm is based in Paris and assists foreign groups across France. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or write via the contact page.