Have you received a French bill for an empty house or flat that you own from the United Kingdom? The charge may be the taxe sur les logements vacants (TLV), meaning the annual tax on vacant homes, or the taxe d’habitation sur les logements vacants (THLV), meaning the vacant-home residence tax used by certain municipalities. It is not the same tax as the taxe d’habitation sur les résidences secondaires, the residence tax on a furnished second home. That classification can decide whether the bill is lawful.

For a British owner, the fact that the property is not a principal home, that the owner lives in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, or that the owner has no French tax residence does not by itself cancel a French property charge. The relevant questions are more concrete: what was the condition and use of the dwelling on 1 January, how long had it been empty, was it habitable, and was the vacancy genuinely within the owner’s control? The French tax authority also looks at the occupation information declared through the property portal.

This guide focuses on a practical challenge to a TLV or THLV assessment. It explains the 2026 rules, the evidence that a UK-based owner can collect remotely, the administrative claim, the request to suspend payment, the court route and the single vacant-home tax scheduled to apply to 2027 assessments. It does not cover the purchase process for a French property.

I. Why has France charged a UK owner a vacant-home tax?

A. Is the bill TLV, THLV or the tax on a furnished second home?

The first step is to read the heading on the notice rather than relying on the word “property tax” used in an English conversation. France has several housing-related taxes, and the legal tests are different. A non-resident owner may receive a taxe foncière, the annual land tax on the property, and may also receive a residence tax for a furnished second home. A bill for a vacant dwelling is a separate assessment. The fact that all three may be collected by French public finance services does not merge their conditions.

For 2026, Article 232 of the Code général des impôts (CGI), the French General Tax Code, governs the TLV. It applies in designated areas where the housing market is considered to be under significant pressure. The current text covers a dwelling that has been vacant for at least one year as at 1 January of the tax year. The tax is payable by the owner, usufructuary or certain long-term holders who had the dwelling available from the beginning of the vacancy period. Article 232 sets the assessment on the property’s cadastral rental value, which is an administrative estimate of the annual rent, at 17% for the first taxable year and 34% from the second year.

The statute also contains the central protection for a genuine dispute. Article 232 states: “La taxe n’est pas due en cas de vacance indépendante de la volonté du contribuable.” In English, the tax is not due where the vacancy is independent of the taxpayer’s will. The words do not create a general exemption for every overseas owner who says that the property was difficult to manage. They require evidence showing why the dwelling could not reasonably be occupied or put on the market in normal conditions.

A THLV assessment follows a different route in 2026. Under the version of Article 1407 bis of the CGI applicable before the 2027 reform, a municipality or an inter-municipal body may impose the vacant-home residence tax outside the TLV area. The dwelling must generally be used for habitation, unfurnished and vacant for more than two years at 1 January. The local authority must have adopted the necessary decision. The calculation uses the same general rental-value base as the residence tax, with the rate determined by the local residence-tax rate. The notice and the municipality therefore matter: a THLV claim should identify the local decision as well as the facts about the property.

Do not confuse either tax with the residence tax on a furnished second home. Article 1407 of the CGI provides that the residence tax on second homes is due for premises furnished in accordance with their residential purpose when they are not the taxpayer’s principal home. The official tax guidance makes the practical distinction clearly: a furnished second home is not a vacant dwelling for this purpose. If a British family uses the house for holidays and leaves furniture, beds, kitchen equipment and ordinary household items in place, the administration may treat it as a furnished second home rather than a vacant unfurnished dwelling. The correct challenge may then concern the residence-tax assessment, not TLV or THLV.

That separate situation is examined in our guide to French residence tax for UK owners of a furnished second home. The two articles should be read together only where the facts require it: a furnished second home is not automatically a vacant home, and a vacant-home challenge should not be used to avoid analysing the residence-tax rules.

That distinction is particularly relevant after a move from the UK. A property can be the owner’s French second home even when the owner remains UK tax resident. The French tax authority explains that local taxes are administered by the service for the area where the property is located and that the owner of a French property can be liable whether domiciled in France or abroad. The same point appears in the UK government’s Living in France guidance, which directs British nationals to French authorities and explains that French property taxes continue to matter separately from residence and immigration status.

There is also a major change already enacted for the future. The 2026 Finance Law created Article 1406 bis of the CGI. From assessments for 2027, the existing TLV and THLV mechanisms are replaced by a single taxe sur la vacance des locaux d’habitation, meaning the tax on vacant residential premises. The new provision keeps a one-year threshold in a pressured area and a two-year threshold elsewhere, subject to the statutory zoning and local-decision rules. In a pressured area the ordinary rates remain 17% and 34%, but a municipality may raise them up to 30% and 60%; outside such an area the rate may be fixed locally up to 50%. A bill issued for 2026 must still be analysed under the regime applicable to that year. A 2027 bill will require a fresh check of the commune, the new tax and the transition calculation.

B. When is an empty French home legally exempt?

The strongest challenge normally starts with the legal classification of the dwelling and the reason for the vacancy. Four questions should be separated.

First, was the property actually a dwelling capable of normal occupation? A shell, a building without water, electricity, sanitary facilities or a safe roof may not satisfy the practical concept of a habitable home. This is not the same as saying that the property was unattractive or required cosmetic work. Decoration, luxury improvements, a new kitchen chosen for convenience or a higher standard of finish will rarely establish that the dwelling could not be occupied.

Secondly, was the dwelling occupied for more than 90 consecutive days during the relevant reference period? Article 232 excludes a dwelling that reaches that threshold for the TLV. The corresponding 2026 administrative guidance also treats occupation of more than 90 consecutive days as a significant exclusion for TLV and THLV. Keep the evidence precise. A few weekend visits spread across the year do not necessarily create 90 consecutive days. Conversely, a long family stay, a tenancy, a caretaker’s occupation or a documented occupation by a third party can change the result.

Thirdly, was the vacancy outside the owner’s control? Common examples include a property genuinely offered for sale or non-furnished letting at a market price without finding a buyer or tenant, a compulsory rehabilitation or demolition project, serious water or fire damage, or works needed to restore basic habitability. A British owner who left the house closed because visits from the UK were inconvenient has a weaker case than an owner who can show an estate-agent mandate, viewings, rejected applications, building reports and a repair timetable.

Fourthly, were substantial works necessary to make the dwelling habitable? The tax authority’s public guidance gives a practical rule: it generally accepts the substantial-work condition where the necessary works exceed 25% of the property’s market value at 1 January. That 25% figure is an administrative rule of practice, not a universal statutory safe harbour. The legal analysis must still identify the works and show that their cost was necessary to reach normal habitability. A quotation for a £100,000 luxury renovation on a habitable €300,000 house is not equivalent to a €90,000 programme to restore the roof, wiring, water supply and sanitary facilities.

The case law is useful because it turns those principles into evidence rules. In Conseil d’État, 18 January 2008, no. 290366, the court held that the statute did not distinguish between public and private owners and that the tax concerns homes that could be placed on the rental market “sur simple décision du propriétaire”, meaning by a simple decision of the owner, in normal and durable conditions. UK nationality is therefore neither a special liability nor a special exemption. The owner must establish the factual reason why this particular dwelling could not be placed on that market.

In Conseil d’État, 15 July 2025, no. 499230, concerning a property undergoing major renovation, the court stated that the tax judge must assess the evidence, including whether the taxpayer failed to produce documents such as quotations for the works. Its formulation is important: “Il appartient au juge de l’impôt, au vu de l’instruction et compte tenu, le cas échéant, de l’abstention du contribuable”. In practical terms, photographs alone may show that the home was unfinished, but the owner should also provide dated technical descriptions, quotations and invoices showing the works needed to make it habitable. The court also confirmed that work intended only to give a property a luxurious character is not treated as necessary work for this exemption.

The decision of CAA Nantes, 24 December 2024, no. 24NT01840, is especially relevant to an owner who cannot afford a major renovation. The court accepted that works representing between 38% and 44% of the market value were substantial and stressed that “la capacité financière à les supporter n’étant pas au nombre des critères d’assujettissement”. In English, the owner’s ability to pay is not the test for whether the property was habitable. A UK owner cannot be refused merely because the administration thinks the owner could have found the money; the dispute is about the nature, necessity and cost of the work.

At the same time, a claim must not stop at an assertion that a tenant existed. In CAA Paris, 15 July 2026, no. 25PA04428, a property-owning SCI, meaning a French civil property company, produced a dated lease but did not prove actual installation of the tenant, continued occupation or rent collection. The court said that the company “ne fournit aucun élément relatif à l’installation effective du locataire, à son maintien dans les lieux et à la perception de loyers”. The lesson for a remote British owner is direct: produce bank statements with appropriate redactions, rent receipts, utility records, insurance correspondence, inventories, handover documents and messages showing the tenant’s actual occupation.

Do not automatically copy a claim for a reduction of the taxe foncière into a TLV challenge. Article 1389 of the CGI provides a separate property-tax relief for a house normally intended for letting when the vacancy is independent of the taxpayer’s will, lasts at least three months and affects the whole property or a separately lettable part. The Conseil d’État judgment of 13 April 2005, no. 265562, expressly distinguished that property-tax relief from the vacancy tax. The same facts may support more than one claim, but each assessment needs its own legal basis and requested relief.

The starting conclusion is therefore narrow. “I live in Britain” is not a defence. “The house is an empty second home” is not enough either. The viable grounds are usually that the bill uses the wrong tax, the property was not vacant in the legal sense, the occupation period exceeded the threshold, the vacancy was independent of the owner’s will, the dwelling needed qualifying works, the commune was not in the relevant zone, the calculation is wrong, or the notice concerns a year for which the taxpayer was not the liable holder.

II. How can a UK owner challenge the assessment and protect the deadline?

A. What should be sent to the French tax service?

Start with the notice and build a dated file before writing a long explanation. Record the tax name, tax year, property address, cadastral references if shown, date of issue, date of collection, amount, issuing service and the legal description of the property. A British owner should identify whether the notice is for TLV, THLV, the 2026 residence tax on a second home, or another local tax. If the notice is in French, obtain a reliable translation of the operative parts, but retain the original notice because the exact wording and dates matter.

The claim is a réclamation, the formal administrative tax claim. It must be sent to the service connected with the property, not simply to a UK authority. The French tax authority’s current procedure allows the owner to use the secure messaging system in the espace Finances publiques, the online public-finance account, by selecting “Réclamation/Contestation” and then the vacant-home tax category. The authority also accepts a written letter to the relevant Service des impôts des particuliers (SIP), the local individual tax office. The official page on a wrongly issued TLV or THLV explains that a claim may include the lease, works quotations and any document proving occupation or vacancy on 1 January.

Article R*190-1 of the Livre des procédures fiscales (LPF), the French Tax Procedure Book, supplies the procedural foundation. It requires a taxpayer who wishes to contest an assessment to first submit a claim to the competent territorial service. The text says that the taxpayer “doit d’abord adresser une réclamation au service territorial”. The 2026 judgment in Conseil d’État, 29 June 2026, no. 513256, is a warning against skipping that stage. The court found a vacant-home-tax challenge procedurally inadmissible where the claimant had not shown that the tax had been assessed or that a prior claim had been made.

A strong claim should contain five distinct elements:

• Identification. Give the owner’s full name, French tax number if available, UK address, French property address, notice number and the exact year challenged. If several owners are named, explain who is submitting the claim and attach authority where necessary.
• Classification. State why the assessment is a TLV, THLV or another charge, then explain why the legal classification is wrong or why a statutory exclusion applies. Do not rely on the general statement that the property is “not my main home”.
• Chronology. Set out what happened before and after 1 January: the last occupation, the date furniture was removed or installed, the date of damage, the date contractors were instructed, marketing dates, viewings, offers, tenancy dates and any sale or transfer.
• Relief sought. Ask for full discharge if the assessment is wholly wrong. If only part is wrong, identify the amount and the calculation to be corrected. The French word décharge means release from the tax assessed; a refund normally follows if the amount has already been paid.
• Evidence index. Number each attachment and refer to it in the chronology. A remote owner should make it easy for the officer to match a photograph, quotation or bank record to a precise date and factual proposition.

The evidence should answer the test, not merely demonstrate ownership. A useful file may include:

• dated photographs and videos showing the condition of every relevant room, including the roof, stairways, heating, electrical installation, water supply, windows and sanitary facilities;
• an architect’s, surveyor’s, builder’s or insurer’s report identifying why ordinary habitation was impossible, with quotations that separate safety and habitability works from improvements;
• planning notices, dangerous-building correspondence, insurance claim records, expert reports, water-damage reports or utility disconnection records;
• the estate-agent mandate, advertised price, listing history, viewing log and written evidence of unsuccessful attempts to let or sell at a market price;
• tenancy documents, check-in records, rent receipts, electricity and water consumption, insurance certificates and messages confirming actual occupation;
• utility bills and travel records where they establish a long occupation or show that a claimed period of 90 consecutive days did not occur;
• the occupancy declaration submitted through the property service, together with screenshots showing when a correction was requested; and
• a certified or carefully prepared French translation of the documents on which the legal argument depends, while retaining the English original for verification.

A British owner should avoid a common evidential mistake: presenting a single contractor quotation with no date, no property address and no explanation of the work. The authority may treat it as an estimate for a chosen renovation rather than proof of necessary works. A better document identifies the condition observed, the safety or habitability defect, the work required, the price before and after tax, and the expected completion date. If the property has been empty because of an inheritance or a dispute between co-owners, add the probate, notarial or court documents that explain why the owner could not lawfully make the property available.

If the claim is sent by post, use a method that records delivery and keep the full signed copy. If it is sent through secure messaging, save the submission receipt, the message, every attachment and the later response. The administration may ask for additional documents. Respond to that request with a short index rather than sending an unstructured archive. The claim should also state that the owner remains available to provide originals or arrange a local inspection if that is necessary.

B. What are the deadlines, payment protections and 2027 consequences?

Submit the claim as soon as the error is identified. The general rule in Article R*196-2 LPF is that claims concerning local direct taxes and related taxes must be submitted by 31 December of the year following the relevant year, such as the year in which the assessment roll was put into recovery. The current text provides that claims must be presented “au plus tard le 31 décembre de l’année suivant celle” of the event listed in the provision. The official tax doctrine specifically states that TLV claims can be submitted under Article R*196-2 and, in particular, by 31 December of the year following the year in which the roll was put into recovery. The notice may contain a more specific date or a special rule, so the notice and the applicable year should always be checked.

For example, if a 2026 TLV or THLV notice was put into recovery in 2026, the ordinary deadline will generally be 31 December 2027. That does not justify waiting. A late correction of the occupancy declaration, a missing receipt or a change in the owner’s address can make the factual investigation harder. A 2027 assessment will also have to be tested against the new Article 1406 bis rules, and the starting point for vacancy may include the period before 1 January 2027. Keep separate files for 2026 and 2027 rather than assuming that a pending 2026 complaint automatically covers a later assessment.

Filing a claim does not normally stop collection. The tax authority expressly warns that a claim does not suspend payment, although the taxpayer may request a sursis de paiement, meaning a suspension or deferral of payment of the disputed amount. Article L277 LPF provides that a taxpayer who contests the basis or amount of an assessment may defer the disputed part when the request is expressly made in the claim and the amount or basis of the requested relief is specified. The wording is practical: “à différer le paiement de la partie contestée”. The request should therefore be included in the original message or letter, identify the disputed sum, explain the grounds and ask the service to confirm the consequences for collection. Do not assume that writing “I contest the bill” is enough.

The official guidance also warns that, if the claim is rejected and the tax was not properly suspended, late-payment consequences may follow. A claimant should therefore decide deliberately whether to pay under protest, seek a payment suspension, or offer any guarantee requested by the accounting service. That decision depends on the amount, the strength of the evidence and the risk of enforcement. Keep proof of any payment because a successful claim should lead to reimbursement of the amount unduly paid.

If the administration rejects the claim, its decision should be preserved with the submission receipt and the date of notification. The service normally has six months to decide under Article R*198-10 LPF, subject to the conditions stated in that article. The next challenge is brought before the administrative court under the applicable tax-procedure rules, not by starting with a private civil claim against the local authority. The competent route can differ between TLV and local taxes. In Conseil d’État no. 513256, the court stated that the TLV “ne saurait être regardée comme un impôt local” for the particular jurisdictional rule under consideration. That is a reason to verify the competent administrative court and the time limit after a refusal, not a reason to skip the prior tax claim. A lawyer should review the refusal promptly because the court deadline is separate from the initial tax-claim deadline. For local-tax appeals, Article R811-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice also contains a special rule for local-tax litigation, so the assessment category cannot be ignored.

The 2027 reform creates a second procedural risk. Article 1406 bis already appears in the CGI, but its operative application is stated to begin with assessments for 2027. The tax authority will use the occupation information connected with the property declaration under Article 1418 of the CGI. A UK owner should review the French property portal before the next declaration period, check whether the dwelling is marked as occupied, furnished, let or vacant, and correct inaccurate information with documents. A correction is not a substitute for a formal claim against a bill already issued. It is evidence that can prevent the same factual error from being repeated.

The reform also changes the financial exposure. In a pressured area, the new tax can retain the 17% first-year and 34% later-year rates, but a local deliberation can raise them to 30% and 60%. Outside a pressured area, a commune or qualifying inter-municipal body can impose the tax after the longer vacancy period and set a rate up to 50%. The exact commune list and local decisions will matter. A British owner with a property in a popular coastal or metropolitan area should not rely on an old notice, an old search result or an estate-agent description of the area; check the official zoning and the tax year.

A defensible file for a 2026 or 2027 dispute should finish with a short decision tree:

1. If the home was furnished and available as a second home, challenge a vacant-home classification by explaining the furnishings, use and Article 1407 position, while checking the separate residence-tax assessment.
2. If the home was genuinely unfurnished, test the one-year or two-year vacancy period, the commune’s power to impose the tax and the exact status on 1 January.
3. If a tenant, buyer or market listing existed, prove actual occupation or serious, documented attempts to let or sell at a normal price.
4. If structural works were required, provide technical evidence, itemised quotations and the value comparison, separating basic habitability from luxury improvements.
5. If the notice is wrong or the administration refuses relief, submit the formal claim, request payment suspension where appropriate, protect the deadline and obtain advice on the administrative-court route.

That sequence keeps the dispute focused. It also avoids a common cross-border error: asking a UK accountant to correct a French local-tax assessment without addressing the French procedural claim. A UK tax return, a council-tax record or proof that the owner lives abroad may explain the background, but the French service will decide the French bill by applying French property facts, French deadlines and French evidence rules.

Conclusion

A British owner of an empty French property may have a real challenge, but the argument must be built around the tax named on the notice and the property’s legal status on 1 January. TLV and THLV are not automatic penalties for Brexit or for living outside France. They depend on the zone, the duration of vacancy, habitability, occupation, the owner’s control of the situation and the evidence supplied to the tax service.

The most useful action is to preserve the notice, reconstruct the chronology, collect technical and occupation evidence, submit the réclamation to the service for the property and expressly address payment suspension if collection would cause difficulty. The 2026 assessment must be kept separate from the 2027 unified tax created by Article 1406 bis. A carefully indexed English-language file, translated where needed, gives the French administration and, if necessary, the administrative court a clear factual basis for deciding whether the tax should be discharged.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.
Receive a focused review of the tax notice, evidence and challenge route.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 (Maître Reda Kohen), or use the contact page.