You moved to France after Brexit, you pay your French taxes, your children visit from Manchester or Bristol, and somewhere in a drawer sits a French assurance-vie contract you opened years ago — or one your bank keeps urging you to open. In France, the assurance-vie, literally life insurance, is above all a savings and investment wrapper: you pay premiums into a contract, the money grows, and on your death the capital goes straight to the people you named. For British residents it is the single most useful estate-planning tool under French law, and also the most misunderstood. Many Britons assume their English will governs everything, that their spouse automatically inherits, or that French inheritance tax works like UK Inheritance Tax. None of that is quite right. This guide explains, for a British reader living in France, how to name your beneficiaries so the money reaches the right person, how the €152,500 allowance and the 20% levy really work, what changed with the two most recent Court of Cassation rulings, how the British tax side interacts, and what to do when an insurer delays, refuses to pay, or the tax office sends a bill you dispute. Every French term is explained as it appears, and every decisive legal statement is tied to the official text it comes from.

I. How do you make your assurance-vie pay the right person after Brexit?

The first battle is not about tax. It is about designation: the clause bénéficiaire, the beneficiary clause, decides who receives the capital. Get it wrong and the money can sit frozen, go to an ex-spouse, or spark a court case between your children. Get it right and the payout bypasses the entire succession process.

A. How should a British resident draft the beneficiary clause and trace a lost contract?

Start with the principle that surprises most Britons. Under Article L. 132-12 of the Insurance Code, “Le capital ou la rente stipulés payables lors du décès de l’assuré à un bénéficiaire déterminé ou à ses héritiers ne font pas partie de la succession de l’assuré.” In plain English: capital payable on your death to a named beneficiary does not form part of your estate. The same article adds that “Le bénéficiaire, quelles que soient la forme et la date de sa désignation, est réputé y avoir eu seul droit à partir du jour du contrat, même si son acceptation est postérieure à la mort de l’assuré.” The beneficiary is treated as having owned the right from the day the contract was signed, even if they only accept after your death. That single mechanism is why the assurance-vie is so powerful: the money travels directly from insurer to beneficiary, outside the notaire’s estate settlement, outside the forced heirship shares, and outside the delays of probate. The notaire, the French public officer who settles successions, simply has no hold over it.

A second surprise follows. Your English will does not override the clause. Because the capital sits outside the succession, changing your will, writing a new one in London, or choosing English law for your estate under the EU Succession Regulation does not redirect the assurance-vie money. Only a new beneficiary designation does. Plenty of British files go wrong exactly here: a testator updates an English will after a divorce or a new baby and forgets the French clause still names the ex-partner or still omits the youngest child. Review the clause itself, on paper, with the insurer, every time your family changes.

French law is generous about how you may designate. Under Article L. 132-8 of the Insurance Code, “Est considérée comme faite au profit de bénéficiaires déterminés la stipulation par laquelle le bénéfice de l’assurance est attribué à une ou plusieurs personnes qui, sans être nommément désignées, sont suffisamment définies dans cette stipulation pour pouvoir être identifiées au moment de l’exigibilité du capital ou de la rente garantis.” You do not have to name each person individually; a description that lets the insurer identify them when the money falls due is enough. The article expressly blesses designations such as children born or yet to be born and heirs or assigns. For a British family that means a clause like “my spouse, failing them my children born or to be born in equal shares, failing them my legal heirs” is perfectly valid and automatically catches a child born after you sign. What it does not do is guess. A vague “my loved ones” or “my family” invites dispute, because the insurer cannot identify anyone with certainty and may freeze the file while the relatives argue.

The standard pre-printed clause found in most bank contracts reads “my spouse, failing which my children born or unborn, in equal shares, failing which my heirs”. It suits many households and you should keep it only if it truly matches your wishes. Three common British situations call for bespoke wording instead. If you live with a partner without marrying and without a PACS, the registered civil partnership, naming “my spouse” gives your partner nothing, because a cohabiting partner is not a spouse. Name them by full name, date of birth, and share. If you have children from a first marriage and shared children from a second, equal shares may not reflect what you promised each household; unequal percentages are allowed, but write them as figures that add up to one hundred, and add what happens to the share of a child who dies before you. If you want your spouse to enjoy the income while preserving the capital for children from a first relationship, ask the insurer about splitting the clause between usufruit, the lifelong right to use the funds and take the income, and nue-propriété, the bare ownership of the capital: the surviving spouse receives the interest, the children own the underlying capital. Insurers handle this routinely, but the tax office applies the €152,500 allowance separately to each split share, so the arithmetic needs checking before you sign.

Form matters as much as words. A designation can sit inside the original application, in a later signed amendment, in a will deposited with a notaire, or even in a sealed letter lodged with the insurer — but it must reach the insurer to be enforceable in practice, and it must be dated so conflicts between successive versions can be resolved. Keep a copy outside the bank: Designations held only in a safe-deposit box nobody knows about cause exactly the files that end up in court. Tell each beneficiary that a contract exists and which insurer holds it, without necessarily disclosing amounts. And after every move between France and the UK, divorce, marriage, PACS, birth, or death in the family, pull the clause out and re-read it. Insurers accept amendments at any time while you live, free of charge, and a five-minute letter today prevents a two-year lawsuit tomorrow.

The mirror problem is the contract nobody can find. A parent dies in Dordogne, the children in Leeds suspect a policy exists, the bank says nothing. France runs a free national search through Agira, the Association for the Management of Information on Insurance Risk, the body that centralises unclaimed life-insurance searches. Any person who believes they may be a beneficiary can file a request, online or by post, attaching a copy of the death certificate; the official service-public.fr information page on this procedure, verified on 6 July 2026, confirms both the two possible cases — you think you are the beneficiary, or you think you know who might be — and the need to enclose the acte de décès, the death certificate. The insurer that holds a matching contract must then come forward. For British families this search is essential practice: UK grants of probate do not list French contracts, French notaires do not automatically know about them either, and money has waited years simply because nobody asked Agira. File the request as soon as you hold the death certificate, and file one per deceased person you suspect held a policy.

Two traps specific to cross-Channel families deserve emphasis. First, funds matter. The tax office’s own guidance for beneficiaries warns that where a married or PACS couple subscribed with joint funds and one of them dies, half of the surrender value is added back to the joint estate, increasing the succession mass. British couples who fund a single contract from a joint account should understand that the survivor protection is real but not absolute: the contract still pays the beneficiary, yet the community property settlement may bring half its value into account. Second, language. Insurers work in French. A clause drafted in English, attached to a French contract, will be translated at the worst possible moment — after your death, by people with an interest in the outcome. Draft in French, keep a certified English translation alongside for your UK executors, and make sure your English will contains a sentence acknowledging the French contracts by insurer and number without purporting to dispose of them.

B. What happens when a beneficiary dies before or just after you, and can your children attack excessive premiums?

Deaths rarely arrive in tidy order. A grandmother names her two children equally; one of them dies days after her; the grandchildren and the surviving child then fight over whether the dead child’s share passes to his own son or accrues to the survivor. That exact pattern reached the Court of Cassation in its ruling of 27 November 2025, Second Civil Chamber, case number 24-12.679, published under reference ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:C201219 and available on the Court’s official site at courdecassation.fr/decision/6927fc1b011fb71514eb9a29. The grandmother had taken out the policy in December 1989 through the Afer association with the clause “I designate as beneficiary in the event of death my spouse, failing them my children in equal shares, failing them my legal assigns”. She died on 4 December 2017; her son died on 8 December 2017, four days later, without having claimed anything. His own son asked the insurer for half the funds, was refused, and sued. The Toulouse Court of Appeal gave everything to the surviving daughter, reasoning that the son had never accepted and that the grandmother had named other beneficiaries of equal and lower rank without reserving the heirs’ rights.

The Court of Cassation quashed that reasoning and laid down a rule every British policyholder should know. It holds that “lorsque la clause bénéficiaire prévoit des stipulations pour autrui distinctes, en cas de décès de l’un des bénéficiaires après le décès du stipulant, les droits de ce bénéficiaire décédé sont transmis à ses héritiers, même en l’absence d’acceptation et en présence d’autres bénéficiaires de même rang ou de sous-ordre, sauf manifestation contraire de volonté du stipulant.” In English: where the clause creates separate third-party rights — the stipulation pour autrui, the French device by which a contract confers a direct right on a third person — the share of a beneficiary who dies after the policyholder passes to that beneficiary’s own heirs, even without acceptance and even alongside other equal or lower-ranked beneficiaries, unless the policyholder clearly willed otherwise. Because the grandmother’s clause gave each child an equal, separate share and said nothing excluding transmission, the deceased son’s half belonged to his own son. Practical lesson: if you want the opposite — the survivor takes all when one child predeceases you — you must write it expressly, for instance “to my children in equal shares, the share of any predeceased child accruing to the survivors”. If you prefer the grandchildren to step into a predeceased parent’s shoes, the default rule already does it, but add “failing them, their own heirs by representation” so the insurer pays without waiting for a court. And where the beneficiary dies clearly before you, update the clause rather than relying on default ranks, because lower-ranked designations then compete.

The second great litigation ground is the opposite complaint: children who say a parent poured an unreasonable fortune into a policy to disinherit them. Here the starting point protects the policyholder. Under Article L. 132-13 of the Insurance Code, “Le capital ou la rente payables au décès du contractant à un bénéficiaire déterminé ne sont soumis ni aux règles du rapport à succession, ni à celles de la réduction pour atteinte à la réserve des héritiers du contractant.” Capital payable to a named beneficiary escapes both the duty to return gifts to the estate pot — the rapport à succession — and the action cutting back gifts that invade the children’s protected minimum — the réserve héréditaire, the forced share French law guarantees to children. The only exception follows immediately: “Ces règles ne s’appliquent pas non plus aux sommes versées par le contractant à titre de primes, à moins que celles-ci n’aient été manifestement exagérées eu égard à ses facultés.” Premiums escape too, unless they were manifestly excessive in light of the policyholder’s means.

The Court of Cassation gave that exception its sharpest recent shape on 19 December 2024, Second Civil Chamber, case number 23-19.110, a ruling published in the Bulletin and available at courdecassation.fr/decision/6763c1939097d8d54595427b. An 83-year-old woman had paid a total of €274,800 into a Sogecap policy between 2009 and 2011, naming the national cancer charity as beneficiary. Her daughter sued to bring part of the premiums back into the estate. The Metz Court of Appeal ordered €130,000 returned, arguing the last payment had concentrated almost the entire estate in one contract and, combined with a will naming the charity universal legatee, effectively disinherited the daughter beyond her protected share. The Court of Cassation quashed the ruling. It restated the controlling test: “les primes versées par le souscripteur d’un contrat d’assurance sur la vie ne sont rapportables à la succession que si elles présentent un caractère manifestement exagéré eu égard aux facultés du souscripteur, un tel caractère s’appréciant au moment du versement, au regard de l’âge, des situations patrimoniale et familiale du souscripteur ainsi que de l’utilité du contrat pour celui-ci.” Premiums return to the estate only if manifestly excessive judged at the date each premium was paid, looking at the policyholder’s age, wealth and family situation, and the usefulness of the contract to them. The appeal court had been wrong, the high court explained, to reason from the heirs’ interest — whether the daughter lost her protected share — because that criterion “is foreign” to the test. Usefulness to the subscriber counts: a contract that served as savings, offered a return, or secured a surviving spouse weighs against excess, even for large sums. Concentration of wealth in one vehicle and disappointment of children, without more, do not suffice.

For British residents the message cuts both ways. If you fund a policy generously late in life to benefit a new partner or a charity while your children expect the estate, expect a challenge — but know the challenge succeeds only on proof, at each payment date, that the sums were out of all proportion to your age, means, family charges, and the contract’s genuine usefulness to you. Keep the evidence while you live: statements of overall wealth at each top-up date, notes of why the contract suited you, medical and lifestyle context showing prudence rather than improvidence. If instead you are the child contesting a parent’s policy, understand what you must prove and what will fail. Showing that the policy emptied the estate or defeated your forced share is, since December 2024, legally inoperative on its own. You need contemporaneous disproportionality: advanced age with no possible use for the savings wrapper, modest means stripped to pay premiums, premiums dwarfing income. Act through a lawyer quickly, because the sums sit with the insurer and limitation periods run, and frame the claim as rapport or réduction of the premiums, not as ownership of the capital itself, which remains outside the estate.

II. How much tax will your beneficiaries pay and how do you challenge the bill?

Tax is where British intuition misleads most. The UK taxes the whole estate above a threshold at 40%. France taxes each beneficiary’s share according to who they are, and the assurance-vie runs on its own separate rails with its own allowances. Two different regimes share the work, divided by two dates: premiums paid before or after 13 October 1998, and premiums paid before or after your seventieth birthday. Identify which rail each euro sits on before doing any arithmetic.

A. Will your beneficiaries pay the 20% levy, full succession duties, or nothing at all?

The main rail is Article 990 I of the General Tax Code, which catches sums paid by insurers on death where Article 757 B does not apply — broadly, premiums paid before age seventy on contracts taken out after 20 November 1991 with post-1998 payments. Its mechanics are precise. The taxable base per beneficiary is reduced first by “un abattement fixe de 152 500 €”, a fixed allowance of €152,500 per beneficiary, and then “Le prélèvement s’élève à 20 % pour la fraction de la part taxable de chaque bénéficiaire inférieure ou égale à 700 000 €, et à 31,25 % pour la fraction de la part taxable de chaque bénéficiaire excédant cette limite.” Each beneficiary is taxed separately: 20% up to €700,000 of their taxable share, 31.25% above. The allowance is per beneficiary, not per contract and not per insurer: all policies on the same deceased person’s life are aggregated, and each beneficiary signs a sworn statement — the attestation sur l’honneur — declaring allowances already used on that death, so splitting money across three insurers to triple the allowance is fraud, not planning.

A worked example helps. Suppose you paid €400,000 before seventy and name two children equally. Each receives €200,000. Each deducts €152,500, leaving €47,500 taxable at 20%, or €9,500 each. Total levy €19,000 on €400,000 transmitted — an effective rate under 5%. Add a third child and each share falls to about €133,333, inside the allowance, so nothing is due at all. The planning consequence is direct: widening the beneficiary group within the family multiplies the allowances. But two warnings apply. First, the relief belongs to the beneficiary’s personal position: a beneficiary who already used €152,500 on an earlier death of the same insured person has nothing left. Second, the financial institution deducts the levy at source before paying out, so errors surface as shortfalls on the transfer, and corrections require a formal claim with the tax office, not a phone call to the bank.

Spouses and PACS partners ride free on this rail. The same Article 990 I provides that “Le bénéficiaire n’est pas assujetti au prélèvement visé au premier alinéa lorsqu’il est exonéré de droits de mutation à titre gratuit en application des dispositions des articles 795, 795-0 A, 796-0 bis et 796-0 ter.” Anyone exempt from gratuitous-transfer duties — crucially the surviving spouse and the PACS partner — pays no levy either. And Article 796-0 bis of the General Tax Code states that exemption in one line: “Sont exonérés de droits de mutation par décès le conjoint survivant et le partenaire lié au défunt par un pacte civil de solidarité.” For a married British couple in France, the practical result is striking: whatever passes between spouses through assurance-vie, at any age, bears no French transfer tax. Unmarried cohabitants get no such shelter and face the 60% stranger rate on the succession rail, which is one more reason the beneficiary clause and the decision to marry or conclude a PACS belong in the same conversation. Readers who already know the firm’s guide on giving a French house to children while keeping the use of it will recognise the same logic: French law rewards the formalised couple and taxes strangers heavily.

The second rail is Article 757 B of the General Tax Code, which governs premiums paid after your seventieth birthday. Here the sums rejoin ordinary succession duties: they “donnent ouverture aux droits de mutation par décès suivant le degré de parenté existant entre le bénéficiaire à titre gratuit et l’assuré à concurrence de la fraction des primes versées après l’âge de soixante-dix ans.” Post-seventy premiums are taxed like any inheritance, at the rate for the relationship. The only shelter is that “L’ensemble des sommes, rentes ou valeurs visées au I dues à raison du ou des contrats conclus sur la tête d’un même assuré fait l’objet d’un abattement global de 30 500 €.” All post-seventy premiums across all contracts on the same life share one single €30,500 allowance, divided between the non-exempt beneficiaries in proportion to their taxable shares. The contrast with the €152,500-per-beneficiary allowance is deliberate policy: France encourages funding before seventy and discourages deathbed sheltering. Example: you pay €60,000 at seventy-two and name two children equally. Deduct €30,500 globally, leaving €29,500 split in two; each child then applies their ordinary €100,000 succession allowance under Article 779 of the General Tax Code — “il est effectué un abattement de 100 000 € sur la part de chacun des ascendants et sur la part de chacun des enfants vivants ou représentés” — so in most families nothing is due. But name a sibling or a friend for post-seventy money and the rates climb steeply with only the shared €30,500 to soften them.

Residence decides which rail even applies. The tax office guidance states the position plainly: “Le prélèvement n’est pas dû lorsqu’à la date du décès, le souscripteur a son domicile fiscal hors de France sauf si le bénéficiaire est résident de France au moment du décès et a été domicilié en France pendant au moins 6 ans au cours des 10 dernières années précédant le décès.” If the policyholder dies non-resident, no levy — unless the beneficiary lives in France and has done so for at least six of the previous ten years. Conversely, where the deceased lived in France, the worldwide logic of Article 750 ter of the General Tax Code applies: “Sont soumis aux droits de mutation à titre gratuit : 1° Les biens meubles et immeubles situés en France ou hors de France… lorsque le donateur ou le défunt a son domicile fiscal en France au sens de l’article 4 B”. A British resident of France is caught on worldwide assets, and the tax office presentation of both regimes is expressly given “sous réserve des conventions internationales”, subject to international treaties. British readers should therefore map three layers, not one: French levy or duties under 990 I or 757 B, the France-UK arrangements as the tax office applies them to the file, and the UK position. The official impots.gouv.fr beneficiary page setting out the table of regimes, the community-property warning, and the non-resident rule is the document to print and keep with the policy.

The UK layer changed recently and catches returning Britons off guard. Since 6 April 2025, domicile concepts were replaced for Inheritance Tax by long-term residence: “From 6 April 2025, if you are a long-term UK resident, your non-UK (overseas) assets may be subject to Inheritance Tax if you make a transfer of assets or die,” in the words of the official HM Revenue and Customs guidance on Inheritance Tax for long-term UK residents. A French assurance-vie is not a trust the UK automatically looks through, and it is not exempt from UK tax by virtue of its French wrapper: if you remain within UK Inheritance Tax on worldwide assets, the policy value can sit inside your UK estate even though France taxed the beneficiaries under its own rules. No single treaty credit erases both bills mechanically on these policies, which is why the order of advice matters: French designation and French allowances first, UK exposure second, and coordination before funding rather than after death. Households weighing the French wrapper against keeping a British pension wrapper will find the trade-offs set out in the market comparison literature — one British-focused adviser’s side-by-side of SIPP pension pots against assurance-vie for patterns from modest retirees to mobile high-net-worth families is a useful second read — but the legal core stays the same: the two countries tax on different bases, at different moments, in different hands.

When the French bill itself looks wrong, challenge follows a strict ladder. The levy is collected at source by the institution, so the first step is a written correction request to the insurer with the allowance arithmetic and the supporting attestation, demanding payment of the shortfall. Against the tax office, file a formal claim — the réclamation contentieuse — within the statutory time, attaching the death certificate, the contract statements distinguishing pre- and post-seventy premiums, proof of the beneficiary’s residence history, and the marriage or PACS certificate where exemption is claimed. Common winning points include premiums misallocated to the wrong rail, allowances already consumed wrongly attributed between beneficiaries, the €30,500 global allowance applied per contract instead of across all contracts, and residence miscounted against the six-in-ten-years test. If the claim is rejected expressly or by silence, appeal lies to the administrative court, where the judge re-computes. Interest for late payment runs meanwhile, so claim early and pay under protest where enforcement threatens, marking every payment as contested. Keep the lineage of each euro: contracts taken out before 20 November 1991 and premiums paid before 13 October 1998 obey gentler transitional rules summarised in the tax office table, and only dated statements prove which regime each payment belongs to.

B. How do you get the insurer to pay on time and what can you do if it refuses?

Death sets a clock running, and the insurer does not have forever. Under Article L. 132-23-1 of the Insurance Code, the company has fifteen days from receiving notice of death and learning the beneficiary’s details to ask for the full set of documents it needs. Then “A réception de ces pièces, l’entreprise d’assurance verse, dans un délai qui ne peut excéder un mois, le capital ou la rente garantis au bénéficiaire du contrat d’assurance sur la vie.” One month from complete documents to payment, no longer. Delay is priced punitively: “le capital non versé produit de plein droit intérêt au double du taux légal durant deux mois puis, à l’expiration de ce délai de deux mois, au triple du taux légal.” Unpaid capital automatically bears interest at twice the statutory rate for two months, then three times the rate. An earlier fifteen-day stage carries its own double-then-triple escalation. These are not negotiating positions; they run by operation of law, without a warning letter, and a file paid six months late should show a visible interest supplement on the transfer.

Prepare the document pack before first contact, because the one-month clock starts only when the file is complete and insurers are skilled at finding it incomplete. Standard contents: the death certificate, your identity document and proof of address, your bank details, the contract number, and — decisively — the fiscal clearance. The insurer will not release funds without proof that the tax position is settled or secured: the certificate of payment or non-liability — the certificat d’acquittement ou de non-exigibilité — or at minimum the filed declaration and payment. Non-resident beneficiaries should add proof of their tax residence and residence history, since the six-in-ten-years test decides liability. Send everything by tracked means, keep copies, and diary fifteen days plus one month from the acknowledged receipt date. If the insurer asks twice for the same paper, object in writing: the statute forbids redundant repeat requests for identical documents, and each round-trip resets nothing in your favour unless you protest.

Refusals fall into patterns, each with its remedy. The insurer says it cannot identify the beneficiary: supply civil-status records, and if the clause is genuinely ambiguous, ask the insurer to state its interpretation in writing, then seek a court declaration rather than accepting a private reading. It says another person claims the same share, for instance a surviving spouse against children of a first marriage: invite the insurer to pay the undisputed portions and consign or hold the disputed balance pending agreement or judgment, instead of freezing the whole file. It says the premiums look manifestly excessive and it awaits the heirs’ action: remind it that excess is for a judge to declare under Article L. 132-13, not for the insurer to decide, and press for payment with a reservation mechanism. It says the tax clearance is missing: file the declaration immediately, because the blockage is lawful until then. Throughout, escalate in writing: formal demand setting the statutory deadlines, complaint to the insurer’s mediator — the médiateur de l’assurance — whose opinion is free and often unlocks files, and finally summons before the tribunal judiciaire, the ordinary civil court, claiming principal, statutory interest uplift, and additional damages for dilatory handling. Limitation helps the diligent: under Article L. 114-1 of the Insurance Code, “La prescription est portée à dix ans dans les contrats d’assurance sur la vie lorsque le bénéficiaire est une personne distincte du souscripteur”, and “les actions du bénéficiaire sont prescrites au plus tard trente ans à compter du décès de l’assuré.” Ten years as beneficiary, with an absolute thirty-year ceiling from death — generous, but Agira searches, fiscal filings, and interest claims all reward the family that moves in the first months.

British-specific friction points complete the picture. Insurers sometimes query UK documents: have the death certificate and any English grant legalised or apostilled where demanded, and supply sworn French translations rather than arguing that English should suffice. Where the deceased also left UK assets, the French payment does not wait for the English probate process — the two run in parallel — but tell the notaire handling any French estate about the policy even though it sits outside the succession, because community-property adjustments and the overall allowance picture require the full map. Where minor children are beneficiaries, the funds may need supervised management: a parent’s receipt alone does not always suffice, and the family judge — the juge des tutelles — can direct how a minor’s capital is held. Where the beneficiary lacks mental capacity, the habilitation or guardianship representative claims in their name. And where the family disagrees about who was designated — handwritten codicils in English, competing amendments, a divorce in London after a designation in Lyon — do not let the insurer adjudicate. Its duty is to pay the person entitled; where entitlement is genuinely contested, the proper course is payment into court or consignment and a judicial ruling, as the 2025 Afer ruling illustrates: the grandson had to sue to vindicate transmission, and only a judgment moved the money.

Costs and proof decide these fights. Keep every envelope: the amendment letters, the Agira acknowledgements, the insurer’s document requests with their dates, the fiscal filing receipts. Send demands by recorded delivery and count the statutory days on the acknowledgement, not on posting. Instruct a lawyer admitted in France for any court step, because limitation, standing as heir-transmitted beneficiary, and the interplay of the levy rails are pleading-sensitive: the family that arrives with dated premium histories, residence calendars, and the clause’s amendment trail settles or wins, while the family with folders of English probate papers and no French clause copy stalls. Readers facing the parallel problem of a death with property and accounts on both sides of the Channel will find the firm’s companion guide on inheriting UK houses and savings while resident in France useful for the estate half of the file; this article governs the insurance half, which obeys its own code, its own deadlines, and its own interest penalties.

Conclusion

For a British resident of France, the assurance-vie remains the closest thing to a private succession law: outside the estate, free of the children’s forced shares except for manifestly excessive premiums judged at each payment date, transmissible to heirs of a predeceased beneficiary unless you write otherwise, and taxed on its own rails — €152,500 per beneficiary and 20% to 31.25% before seventy, a single €30,500 allowance and ordinary duty rates after. Spouses and PACS partners pay nothing; cohabitants and distant beneficiaries pay heavily; residence on either side of the Channel decides which bills even arise. Brexit changed none of these French mechanics, but it made the surrounding file harder: English wills that do not touch the clause, UK Inheritance Tax that looks through the wrapper, documents in two languages, families in two countries. The discipline that wins is simple and entirely in your hands while you live: draft the clause in French for your real family as it is today, re-sign it at every birth, marriage, divorce, or move, tell your beneficiaries where the contracts sleep, keep the premium and residence history that proves your allowances, and search Agira the week death comes. Do that, and the capital moves in a month with interest penalties protecting you. Neglect it, and your loved ones inherit a choice between a frozen file and a lawsuit — the two outcomes this entire guide exists to prevent.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Talk it through with a lawyer before you sign, amend, claim, or contest. Our office offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm.
Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 (Maître Reda Kohen).
Or write via our contact page and describe your assurance-vie question: beneficiary clause, allowance calculation, insurer delay, or disputed tax bill.