Cabinet Kohen Avocats · Paris

Maître Reda KOHEN intervient en droit immobilier, droit des sociétés et droit des affaires à Paris. Première analyse offerte, réponse personnelle sous 24 heures.

100 % confidentiel · Secret professionnel · Sans engagement

Barreau de Paris Immobilier, sociétés, affaires Fiche CNB avocat.fr
Maître Reda KOHEN, avocat au Barreau de Paris
Maître Reda KOHEN
Avocat au Barreau de Paris

Taking Profits Out of Your French Company From Abroad: Approving Accounts, Voting Dividends and Paying French Withholding Tax

You formed a company in France, it finally makes money, and you live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore. The profits sit in the French bank account, and a simple question blocks everything: how do you lawfully move that money to yourself? Wiring it out as a transfer, an invoice with no substance or an informal advance exposes you to some of the harshest reclassifications in French law, from fictitious dividends to withholding tax reassessed with penalties. There is only one clean route, and it runs in two stages. First, the company must approve its annual accounts and vote a dividend distribution in strict compliance with the French Commercial Code, even when every shareholder and director lives abroad. Second, France withholds tax at source on the dividends paid to non-residents, and you recover the excess only through the exemption or treaty mechanism that fits your situation. This article walks you through both stages, with the exact code provisions, two recent court decisions that show where foreign owners lose, and the practical calendar that keeps the distribution valid.

I. How do I approve the accounts and vote dividends when I live abroad?

A. Approve the annual accounts first: the meeting that unlocks every distribution

No dividend can exist before the annual accounts are approved. Article L. 232-11 of the French Commercial Code defines the starting point: “Le bénéfice distribuable est constitué par le bénéfice de l’exercice, diminué des pertes antérieures, ainsi que des sommes à porter en réserve en application de la loi ou des statuts, et augmenté du report bénéficiaire.” In plain English, the distributable profit is the profit for the financial year, minus prior losses and the sums that must go to reserves by law or by the articles of association (the statuts), plus any retained earnings carried forward (the report à nouveau). If that calculation gives zero or a negative figure, there is nothing to distribute, and any payment labelled a dividend is unlawful.

Once the accounts are approved and distributable sums are identified, article L. 232-12 provides that “Après approbation des comptes annuels et constatation de l’existence de sommes distribuables, l’assemblée générale détermine la part attribuée aux associés sous forme de dividendes.” Only the shareholders, acting collectively after approving the accounts, decide the share paid out as dividends. Neither the président of a SAS (société par actions simplifiée, the flexible joint-stock company most foreign founders choose) nor the gérant of a SARL (société à responsabilité limitée, the limited liability company with stricter statutory rules) can distribute dividends alone. In a SAS, the statuts decide which decisions must be taken collectively by the shareholders and in what form, since “Les statuts déterminent les décisions qui doivent être prises collectivement par les associés dans les formes et conditions qu’ils prévoient.” under article L. 227-9, but the approval of the annual accounts and the allocation of profits always belong to the shareholders collectively. In a SARL, the same logic applies through the ordinary general meeting.

Living abroad changes nothing about these duties, and it does not excuse absence. Article 1844 of the French Civil Code states that “Tout associé a le droit de participer aux décisions collectives.” Every shareholder has the right to take part in collective decisions, and in practice foreign owners exercise it remotely: well-drafted statuts of a SAS allow consultation in writing or by videoconference, and a sole shareholder (associé unique) simply records the decisions in signed minutes (procès-verbal). What matters is the paper trail: dated minutes identifying the meeting, the accounts approved, the distributable profit calculated, and the dividend voted. A foreign shareholder who signs nothing and lets the French accountant “handle it” has no proof that a valid distribution was ever decided, and that gap becomes expensive the day the tax administration or a co-shareholder challenges the payments.

Approval is also a filing obligation, not a private formality. After the meeting, the company must file its annual accounts, and the dedicated official page explains the procedure for the dépôt des comptes annuels d’une société, now routed through the single digital gateway (guichet unique) operated at procedures.inpi.fr by the INPI (Institut national de la propriété industrielle, the French intellectual property and business formalities office). The greffe (the registry office of the commercial court, which keeps the RCS, the Registre du commerce et des sociétés, the French companies register) receives the accounts, and third parties — including banks and future buyers — check them there. Filing late does not cancel the dividend, but it signals disorder, draws penalties, and weakens your position if the distribution is later disputed.

The most dangerous trap for foreign owners concerns retained earnings. Suppose year one ends with a profit that the shareholders leave in the report à nouveau instead of distributing. In year two, the shareholders meet outside the annual approval meeting and vote a dividend taken from that carried-forward profit. The Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) ruled on exactly this pattern on 12 February 2025 in a widely noted SAS case (pourvoi no. 23-11.410, published in the Bulletin, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:CO00072). The Court held that the carried-forward profit of one year is included in the distributable profit of the following year, so that “seule l’assemblée approuvant les comptes de cet exercice pourra décider son affectation et, le cas échéant, sa distribution.” Only the meeting that approves the accounts for that following year can allocate the carried-forward profit and distribute it. A separate meeting, convened months later to distribute the old report à nouveau, adopts a resolution that incurs nullity. Foreign groups that “sweep” old retained earnings by a quick written resolution between closings must therefore attach every distribution to the annual approval meeting for the year in which the carried-forward profit sits, or the dividend can be annulled.

B. Vote, record and pay the dividend within nine months

The distribution resolution must say precisely what is distributed and from which line it comes. Where the shareholders draw on reserves at their disposal, the decision must expressly identify the reserve accounts used, because article L. 232-11 requires that transparency and gives priority to the distributable profit of the year. A resolution that votes “a dividend of 80,000 euros” without stating whether it comes from the yearly profit, the report à nouveau or a specific reserve is an invitation to dispute: in a later conflict between a departing foreign shareholder and the remaining partners, or during a tax audit (contrôle fiscal), nobody can reconstruct what was decided. The minutes should therefore record the amount of distributable profit, the portion allocated to dividends per share, the portion carried forward or placed in reserves, and the payment date.

That payment date is not free. Article L. 232-13 of the Commercial Code provides that “la mise en paiement des dividendes doit avoir lieu dans un délai maximal de neuf mois après la clôture de l’exercice. La prolongation de ce délai peut être accordée par décision de justice.” Dividends voted must actually be paid within nine months after the financial year-end, and only a court can extend that period. A foreign owner who votes a dividend in June for a December year-end and only wires the funds fourteen months later, once the home-country cash need arises, breaches the rule. The practical fix is simple: align the approval meeting and the cash planning so the nine-month deadline is met, or apply to the court (tribunal) for an extension before the deadline expires, with reasons linked to the company’s cash position.

Paying without profits is punished as a fictitious dividend (dividende fictif). Article L. 232-12 closes with the warning that “Tout dividende distribué en violation des règles ci-dessus énoncées est un dividende fictif.” Any dividend distributed in breach of the rules on distributable profit and proper approval is fictitious. The consequences fall on two sides: the shareholders may be ordered to repay dividends received in bad faith, and the directors face criminal liability for distributing fictitious dividends. For a foreign founder who is also président or gérant, that criminal exposure is personal and does not disappear at the border. The URSSAF (Unions de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales, the French social security collection agency) and the tax administration share information, so an unjustified cash extraction flagged in one audit quickly migrates to the other.

Paradoxically, even a defective resolution produces effects until a court kills it. In the same 12 February 2025 ruling, the Cour de cassation recalled that “les délibérations d’une société commerciale s’imposent aux associés tant que la nullité n’en a pas été prononcée.” Corporate resolutions bind the shareholders until annulment is pronounced. In that case, the sellers of the shares had voted themselves a 60,000 euro dividend from the report à nouveau after signing a sale agreement, the buyer refused to pay it, and the court of appeal sided with the buyer — but the Cour de cassation quashed that outcome, because the buyer had never obtained annulment of the distribution resolution. The lesson for a foreign owner cuts both ways. If you are the beneficiary, a buyer or a hostile majority cannot simply ignore a voted dividend; they must have it annulled in court. If you are the new owner discovering that the sellers voted themselves a dividend from old retained earnings just before the sale, you must act fast and seek annulment rather than refusing payment unilaterally. In share deals involving French targets, the dividend clause of the sale agreement (convention de cession) should therefore state who owns distributions voted before and after closing, and the purchaser should verify in the greffe filings and the minutes which meeting voted what.

From abroad, execution is a matter of discipline: signed minutes, updated shareholder ledger (registre des mouvements de titres) for a SAS, bank transfer referencing the resolution date, and accounts filed on the guichet unique. Each document answers one question an auditor or a judge will ask — was there a profit, who approved it, when was it paid. When all four answers are documented, the distribution survives; when any is missing, the foreign owner discovers that French company law has no “substance over form” rescue for dividends.

II. How much withholding tax will France take on my dividends, and how do I get treaty relief?

A. The French withholding: who pays what rate before the money leaves France

The moment a French company pays dividends to a shareholder who is not a French tax resident, France taxes at source. The Conseil d’État (the supreme court for administrative and tax disputes) summarised the mechanism in these terms: “Le 2 de l’article 119 bis du code général des impôts soumet à une retenue à la source les revenus distribués par des personnes morales françaises à des personnes qui n’ont pas leur domicile fiscal ou leur siège en France.” Article 119 bis, paragraph 2, of the CGI (Code général des impôts, the French general tax code) subjects income distributed by French legal persons to a withholding tax (retenue à la source) when the beneficiary has neither a tax domicile nor a registered office in France. The full provision is readable at article 119 bis du CGI. For a foreign founder, this means the French company withholds the tax itself and pays you the net dividend; you never receive the gross amount and “settle later” in France.

The rate depends on who you are. Article 187 of the CGI, which sets the withholding rates, is available at article 187 du CGI. For corporate shareholders and bodies of any form, the rate is the standard corporate income tax rate set by article 219 — and article 219, paragraph I, states that “Le taux normal de l’impôt est fixé à 25 %.” the standard rate of IS (impôt sur les sociétés, French corporate income tax) is 25 percent. For individual beneficiaries, article 187 sets the rate at 12.8 percent. And where dividends are paid into a non-cooperative state or territory (État ou territoire non coopératif, the French blacklist defined by reference to article 238-0 A), the rate jumps to 75 percent unless the payer proves the payment has neither the object nor the effect of locating the income there for tax fraud purposes. A foreign holding company therefore faces 25 percent French withholding on the gross dividend, a foreign individual 12.8 percent, and structures routed through blacklisted jurisdictions a prohibitive 75 percent.

The main exit from the 25 percent levy is the European parent-subsidiary exemption. Article 119 ter of the CGI provides that “La retenue à la source prévue au 2 de l’article 119 bis n’est pas applicable aux dividendes distribués à une personne morale qui remplit les conditions énumérées au 2 du présent article par une société ou un organisme soumis à l’impôt sur les sociétés au taux normal.” The withholding does not apply to dividends paid by a company subject to corporate tax at the standard rate to a legal person meeting the listed conditions. Those conditions, verified in the version of article 119 ter in force on 14 September 2026, are cumulative: the parent must prove it is the effective beneficiary (bénéficiaire effectif) of the dividends; it must have its place of effective management in a European Union member state or in a European Economic Area state that has an administrative assistance treaty with France; it must take one of the listed EU company forms; it must hold directly, uninterrupted for two years or more, at least 10 percent of the capital of the distributing company (or commit to hold it for two years and appoint a tax representative); and it must itself be liable to corporate tax in its state without option or exemption. Where the parent cannot yet show two years of holding, the commitment mechanism with a designated representative keeps the exemption available from day one, provided the two-year holding is actually completed.

But the exemption is policed, and the leading warning for foreign groups comes from the Conseil d’État’s decision of 13 June 2018 (no. 397127, ECLI:FR:CECHS:2018:397127.20180613). A French SAS had paid dividends to a Luxembourg SARL owned through a chain ending with a non-EU resident, and the tax administration reassessed the withholding by invoking the anti-abuse exception. The Conseil d’État upheld the reassessment, finding in its sovereign assessment that “la chaîne des participations en litige avait comme objet principal, au sens des dispositions du 3 de l’article 119 ter du code général des impôts, de tirer avantage de l’exonération de retenue à la source prévue au 1 du même article et que la société requérante ne pouvait dès lors bénéficier de cette exonération.” The participation chain had as its principal object taking advantage of the withholding exemption, so the exemption was lost. Note the historical detail: at the time, the anti-abuse test targeted chains controlled by non-EU residents; the current paragraph 3 of article 119 ter now denies the exemption to dividends paid under an arrangement whose principal purpose is obtaining a tax advantage contrary to the provision’s object, where the arrangement is not genuine in light of all relevant facts. For a foreign founder outside the EU who inserts a holding company in an EU member state mainly to erase French withholding, the Eurotrade Fish ruling is the precedent the auditor will cite. The holding must have economic reality — premises, staff, decision-making, activity — or the 25 percent withholding returns with interest and penalties.

B. Getting treaty relief and reclaiming overpaid withholding from abroad

Outside the EU exemption, bilateral tax treaties (conventions fiscales) are the second relief channel. France has signed treaties with most investor home countries, and nearly all of them cap the French withholding on dividends at 15 percent, 10 percent or even 5 percent for substantial corporate holdings, provided the beneficiary is genuinely resident in the treaty state. The mechanism works in two modes. Under the reduced-rate-at-source procedure, the foreign shareholder gives the French payer a certificate of residence before the payment, and the company withholds at the treaty rate directly. Under the refund procedure, the company withholds at the domestic rate and the shareholder reclaims the difference from the French tax administration afterwards. The residence affidavit used for this purpose is the official form no. 5000-SD, published by the French tax administration at impots.gouv.fr (form 5000-SD, affidavit of residence), to be completed with the help of the home-country tax authority and returned through the French payer or directly to the non-residents tax office (Service des impôts des particuliers non-résidents). Deadlines are strict, and a reclaim filed late or on the wrong form is rejected without examination of the merits, so diarise the treaty timetable as carefully as the nine-month payment deadline.

Individual founders sometimes discover that the 12.8 percent French withholding exceeds what their home country would charge, or that it creates double taxation when the home country taxes the same dividend. Most treaties solve this by letting the home country grant a tax credit for the French withholding up to the treaty-capped rate, with any French excess refundable in France. Keep every voucher (attestation de retenue) issued by the French company: the home-country return and the French reclaim both require proof of the amount actually withheld. Founders resident in the United States, the United Kingdom or the Gulf states should check their treaty’s dividend article before the distribution is voted, because the applicable cap and the “beneficial owner” condition vary, and restructuring shareholding after the dividend is voted never improves the rate.

Three errors account for most of the files that reach our office. The first is distributing without approved accounts that show distributable profit — the fictitious dividend trap of article L. 232-12, which ends in repayment orders and, for the director, criminal exposure. The second is voting the dividend at the wrong meeting, typically a mid-year resolution sweeping old retained earnings, which the Cour de cassation’s 12 February 2025 decision exposes to annulment. The third is assuming the money can travel gross: paying a foreign parent or a foreign individual the full dividend and leaving the withholding for “later” creates an immediate shortfall debt of the company toward the Treasury, with late interest running from the payment date. Each error has the same root cause — treating the French company as a branch of the founder’s foreign business rather than as a French legal person with its own meetings, filings and tax duties. The BODACC (Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, the official gazette where company events are published) and the greffe filings keep a permanent trace of what was decided and when, so reconstruction after the fact never works.

The compliant sequence, run from abroad, therefore looks like this: close the accounts with the French accountant (expert-comptable); hold the approval meeting — physically, by videoconference or in writing as the statuts allow — that approves the accounts, computes the distributable profit and votes the dividend with its payment date inside the nine-month window; file the accounts on the guichet unique; have the company withhold at the correct domestic, exempted or treaty rate, with the residence certificate or exemption file assembled before payment; wire the net dividend with a reference to the resolution; and calendar the reclaim if tax was over-withheld. Done in this order, the distribution is valid under company law, correctly taxed at source, and documented for both the French auditor and the home-country tax return.

Conclusion

Taking profits out of a French company from abroad is neither a simple transfer nor a negotiation with the accountant: it is a two-stage legal operation. Company law decides whether a dividend exists at all — approved accounts, distributable profit, collective shareholder vote, payment within nine months — and the Cour de cassation’s 12 February 2025 ruling shows that even the meeting chosen for the vote can void the distribution. Tax law then decides how much of that dividend crosses the border — domestic withholding at 25 percent for foreign companies and 12.8 percent for foreign individuals, EU parent-subsidiary exemption under strict and policed conditions, or treaty-capped rates recovered through the official reclaim forms. Foreign founders who respect this order, document each step from abroad, and check the exemption conditions before wiring, turn a high-risk extraction into a routine annual gesture. Those who wire first and document later hand the French administration and their own co-shareholders the exact weapons French law forged for that situation.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Talk it through with a lawyer before you vote, pay or wire anything. Our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a counsel of the firm: call +33 6 46 60 58 22. You can also reach us through our contact page with a short summary of your company, your residence country and the distribution you are planning.

Source : Cour de cassation – Base Open Data « Judilibre » & « Légifrance ».

What our clients say

Janou SAMUEL
3 weeks ago

Thank you to Maître KOHEN for his analyses of recent case law regarding fraudulent concealment in real estate sales. This reinforces my decision to pursue an action for rescission that I am considering after acquiring a house affected by serious defects intentionally concealed by the seller and not reported by the real estate agent; also defects (rising damp) characterized by progressive through-cracks and damp patches, not reported by the real estate agent… Worse, defects concealed by the latter or on his initiative under a coat of paint and polystyrene tiles glued to the ceiling of a bedroom. And said real estate agent was the drafter of the preliminary contract, which naturally contains no information regarding any of these defects. I would just add that, being 77 years old and suffering from cognitive impairment, I am certain the real estate agent thought I would not be able to uncover the deception and, above all, characterize fraudulent intent, let alone initiate legal proceedings given the complexity and length of the process... That is why I am opting for criminal proceedings, insofar as the intentional concealment of defects by the seller and then by the real estate agent

Translated from French

Paul MALIK (powlo)
3 months ago

Maître Reda KOHEN assisted me in a dispute concerning a sale agreement with a defaulting party. He provided professional and responsive support, and I highly recommend him.

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

Legal advice is only valuable if it arrives on time — delighted to have been there when needed. Thank you for your kind words.

Rayan Kallout
4 months ago

I highly recommend Maître Reda Kohen. Thanks to his explanations, I was able to recover my security deposit in a situation that seemed blocked. He was responsive, clear, and very professional. A big thank you for his invaluable help!

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

The return of the security deposit is a more common rental dispute than one might think; glad that the situation was resolved quickly. Thank you for this feedback.

Naji Jouahri
4 months ago

Excellent support from Maître Kohen in a case combining business law and real estate law. Clear legal analysis from the first meeting, right through to the hearing. Professional and accessible lawyer, I highly recommend his firm in Paris 17.

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

Cases at the intersection of business law and real estate law require a comprehensive overview — that's the core of the firm's practice, from the initial meeting to the hearing. Thank you for this precise recommendation.

Halim Tunde
4 months ago

Maître Kohen assisted me in recovering unpaid debts from a defaulting tenant. Procedure mastered from start to finish, from the payment order to eviction. Human, attentive, and always reachable. Thank you for your work.

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

Collecting unpaid rent requires a procedure handled from start to finish, without downtime — glad to have seen yours through to completion. Thank you for this testimonial.

Cha
4 months ago

As a young student living in an apartment, my landlord tried to make me leave my accommodation even though he had sent me no termination notice. I therefore contacted Mr. Reda Kohen to help me as I couldn’t handle the situation alone. In just 3 days everything was resolved, Maître Kohen defended me and accompanied me with an irreproachable level of commitment and efficiency. I can only recommend his professionalism!

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

An irregular termination notice does not terminate a lease: delighted that the situation was resolved in a few days. Good luck with your studies.

Asmaa Maazaz
5 months ago

I turned to Maître Kohen for a complex real estate dispute and I highly recommend his firm. He is very professional; he thoroughly analyzed my case from the very first appointment and clearly explained the possible options. Thanks to his expertise, we achieved a very favorable outcome. Responsive, a good teacher, and committed, he is a lawyer you can truly trust. Yours faithfully, Miss Maazaz

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

Thank you very much, Miss Maazaz, for this feedback. Analytical rigor and responsiveness are essential commitments of our law firm specializing in real estate law in Paris, where each case requires a tailored approach. Delighted that we were able to achieve a favorable outcome. The firm remains at your disposal. Best regards.

chaymaa aouadi
6 months ago

I called upon Maître Reda Kohen, a real estate lawyer in Paris, and I am fully satisfied with his support. Very professional, responsive and attentive. He quickly analyzed my case, clearly explained the legal strategy and effectively defended my interests. Thanks to his expertise and determination, we obtained a very favorable outcome. I highly recommend Maître Kohen to anyone looking for a real estate lawyer in Paris.

Translated from French

Reply from the firm

A big thank you for this feedback. It is exactly this kind of return that gives full meaning to our commitment to real estate law in Paris. Your satisfaction is our best recommendation.