You have found the house: a stone farmhouse in the Dordogne, or a two-bedroom flat in Paris that finally makes the move to France feel real. You are British, resident in France after Brexit, and the question the estate agent cannot answer is the one that matters most: in whose name should the property be held? In France, a couple or a family can buy directly in joint ownership, through a family property company called a société civile immobilière (a civil property company, universally shortened to SCI), or with a survivor-takes-all mechanism called a pacte tontinier (a tontine clause). Each route changes who can sell, who pays tax, and what happens when a partner dies or when the family falls out. This guide explains the three routes in plain English, with the exact legal texts behind them, and sets out what a British co-owner can do when a sale or a decision is blocked by the other side.
This article covers how you hold the property, not the conveyancing itself: the purchase process before the notaire (the French public-officer conveyancer who certifies the sale) belongs to a different guide, as does setting up a trading company. Here, you are the owner already, or about to become one, and you want the holding structure that fits a British family living in France. The British government’s own guidance for nationals settled in France, published on gov.uk’s Living in France guide, is a useful starting point for daily life as a resident, but it does not replace French legal advice on property structures. What follows reflects French law as in force on 22 September 2026, with the decisions courts actually apply when shareholders and co-owners go to war.
I. Should a British family hold its French home through an SCI, a tontine clause or direct joint ownership?
A. Is an SCI worth it for a British couple or family buying in France?
An SCI is a company whose only purpose is to own and manage property. French law defines a company in deliberately broad terms: article 1832 of the Civil Code provides that “La société est instituée par deux ou plusieurs personnes qui conviennent par un contrat d’affecter à une entreprise commune des biens ou leur industrie en vue de partager le bénéfice ou de profiter de l’économie qui pourra en résulter.” In an SCI, the family contributes money, the SCI buys the house, and each member holds parts sociales (shares) instead of owning bricks directly. The French Ministry of the Economy describes the vehicle in practical terms on economie.gouv.fr’s SCI explainer, which is worth reading before you sign anything.
For a British family, the SCI has four genuine attractions. First, governance: the statuts (the articles of association) decide who manages the property, how decisions are taken, and what majority sells or borrows. A well-drafted SCI ends the nightly argument about whether to sell the Dordogne house, because the articles already answer it. Second, transmission: giving shares to children, in stages, is simpler and cheaper in duty terms than splitting the house itself, and each gift can keep the parents’ control through the manager’s role. Third, protection of the couple: where only one partner funds the purchase, shares can still be split unequally to reflect reality, which direct joint ownership handles badly. Fourth, continuity: the SCI survives deaths, divorces and departures, whereas direct co-ownership, called indivision, pushes every disagreement toward a court-ordered sale, as Part II explains.
The price of these advantages is formality and cost. An SCI needs written articles, registration with the company register, a gérant (manager), annual meetings with minutes, accounts, and usually an accountant. Expect several hundred euros a year in running costs before any tax. The structure is transparent for income tax, which surprises many British buyers: article 1655 ter of the General Tax Code means that “les associés ou actionnaires sont personnellement soumis à l’impôt sur le revenu ou à l’impôt sur les sociétés, suivant le cas, pour la part des revenus sociaux correspondant à leurs droits dans la société”. In plain English, the SCI itself generally pays no income tax; each family member declares their slice of the rental result in France, and a British resident declares worldwide income in France under the France-United Kingdom double tax treaty, with relief mechanics that need a Franco-British tax adviser, not guesswork.
Three traps catch British families in particular. The furnished-letting trap is the most expensive: if the SCI lets the house furnished when that activity becomes preponderant, the company flips into corporation tax, and the family loses the capital-gains treatment of private individuals on a later sale. If you plan location meublée (furnished letting, the regime most holiday lets use), take advice before the SCI signs anything. The two-shareholder trap is the second: most family SCIs have two shareholders, often spouses, so one death or one divorce can paralyse the company, and the survivor discovers that the articles gave no tie-break. The third trap is the British side: HMRC has its own view of French entities, and a structure that is transparent in France is not automatically transparent in the United Kingdom. An SCI remains an excellent tool for a British family holding a French home, but only when a French notaire drafts the articles for your family and a bilateral tax adviser checks the British side before incorporation.
B. How does the tontine clause protect the surviving partner, and where does it turn dangerous?
The pacte tontinier, or tontine clause, is the oldest French answer to the same fear: what happens to the survivor when one of us dies? Inserted in the purchase deed or in SCI articles, it provides that the survivor is deemed to have owned the whole property, or the whole parcel of shares, from day one. The deceased is treated as never having owned anything, so there is no succession on that asset and, in principle, no co-ownership with the deceased’s children from another relationship. For an unmarried British couple buying in France, where the survivor would otherwise inherit little and face a 60 per cent succession-tax bill on the deceased’s share after a small allowance, the appeal is obvious.
The Court of Cassation restated the mechanism in the most authoritative recent terms. In its judgment of 9 April 2026, Third Civil Chamber, appeal no. 25-12.992, published in the Bulletin (Cass. 3rd civ., 9 April 2026, no. 25-12.992), the Court held that “La clause de tontine ou d’accroissement stipulée dans les statuts d’une société civile est celle qui attribue au dernier survivant, de manière rétroactive, la propriété des parts incluses dans le pacte tontinier.” And where the clause covers everything, the effect is total: “Lorsqu’elle porte sur l’ensemble des parts, elle emporte leur réunion en une seule main au décès de l’avant-dernier tontinier.” In ordinary English: the last one standing takes all, retroactively, as if the others had never owned the shares.
That retroactivity is both the shield and the sword. Because the survivor is deemed always to have owned the property, neither partner can sell, mortgage or give away their half alone while both are alive: any buyer knows the seller’s rights evaporate if the seller dies first. Every significant act needs both signatures, which is exactly what an estranged couple cannot produce. Worse, the clause survives separation: if the couple splits and forgets to delete the tontine, the ex-partner who outlives the other still takes everything. Any British couple inserting a tontine clause should diary two reviews, on separation and on any new will, because an English will cannot silently undo a French tontine. Our guide for British wills over French houses and the choice for English law explains how the two documents must be drafted to point the same way.
The tax sting follows the same logic. Since the deceased is deemed never to have owned the asset, the survivor’s windfall is not an inheritance in the legal sense, but French tax law still takes its share from non-married survivors, and the bill can be brutal for cohabiting couples. Married couples and civil partners, by contrast, enjoy a full exemption between spouses on succession, which often makes marriage or a PACS (the French registered civil partnership) plus an adapted matrimonial regime a cheaper shield than a tontine. The honest summary for a British family is this: direct ownership with a tontine suits a stable couple whose priority is the survivor and who accept joint paralysis while both live; an SCI suits a family that wants rules, staged gifts to children and a vehicle that outlives its founders; direct ownership with nothing suits almost nobody, because it offers the survivor no protection and the family no rules. Whatever you choose, the decision belongs in the purchase deed or the SCI articles from the start: adding a tontine or contributing the house to an SCI afterwards means a second deed, a second fee, and sometimes a second tax.
II. What can a British co-owner do when the other side blocks the sale or the decision?
A. How do you force the sale, leave the SCI, or dissolve a paralysed company?
Start with the baseline rule of French co-ownership, because it governs every direct purchase and colours every SCI dispute. Article 815 of the Civil Code states that “Nul ne peut être contraint à demeurer dans l’indivision et le partage peut toujours être provoqué, à moins qu’il n’y ait été sursis par jugement ou convention.” No one can be forced to stay in joint ownership: any co-owner can always demand partition, unless a court or an agreement has frozen it. Families can organise that freeze themselves, since article 1873-1 of the Civil Code confirms that “Ceux qui ont des droits à exercer sur des biens indivis, à titre de propriétaires, de nus-propriétaires ou d’usufruitiers peuvent passer des conventions relatives à l’exercice de ces droits.” A British couple who want five quiet years before any sale becomes possible can write that convention, but without one, the exit door stays open.
Day-to-day blockages have intermediate answers before any sale. Co-owners holding at least two thirds of the rights can take management decisions at that majority: article 815-3 of the Civil Code provides that “Le ou les indivisaires titulaires d’au moins deux tiers des droits indivis peuvent, à cette majorité” carry out defined acts of administration. And where one co-owner’s refusal endangers the common interest, the court can authorise the other to act alone: article 815-5 of the Civil Code states that “Un indivisaire peut être autorisé par justice à passer seul un acte pour lequel le consentement d’un coïndivisaire serait nécessaire, si le refus de celui-ci met en péril l’intérêt commun.” In practice, that covers emergency roof repairs or renewing a lease that keeps the rent coming in, not forcing the sale itself, but it keeps the asset alive while the bigger dispute runs its course.
When cohabitation in ownership becomes impossible, the endgame is partition, and British claimants should understand its two financial edges. First, the co-owner who stays in the house alone does not live there for nothing: the First Civil Chamber recalled, in a judgment of 15 May 2018, appeal no. 17-18.903 (Cass. 1st civ., 15 May 2018, no. 17-18.903), that “l’indivisaire qui use ou jouit privativement de la chose indivise est, sauf convention contraire, redevable d’une indemnité”. Someone who keeps the French house for themselves owes the other an occupation payment. Second, a provisional attribution of the house during the proceedings changes nothing until the final split: in the same decision, the Court recalled that “le bénéficiaire de l’attribution préférentielle ne devient propriétaire exclusif du bien attribué qu’au jour du partage définitif”. If the court cannot split the house fairly in kind, it orders a sale by auction, the licitation, and divides the price. The procedure starts with a formal demand by letter, continues with proceedings before the tribunal judiciaire (the ordinary civil court), and needs a full paper trail: title deed, proof of each side’s payments toward the price, works and charges, and any written agreement about the house.
Inside an SCI, the exits have different names but the same logic. Any shareholder can leave if the articles organise withdrawal, and even silence in the articles is not a prison: the Civil Code opens a judicial door. Article 1869 of the Civil Code provides that “Sans préjudice des droits des tiers, un associé peut se retirer totalement ou partiellement de la société, dans les conditions prévues par les statuts ou, à défaut, après autorisation donnée par une décision unanime des autres associés.” It continues: “Ce retrait peut également être autorisé pour justes motifs par une décision de justice.” The courts police this right strictly. In a judgment of 29 September 2016, Third Civil Chamber, appeal no. 15-18.396 (Cass. 3rd civ., 29 September 2016, no. 15-18.396), the Court quashed an appeal ruling that had accepted articles making withdrawal depend on the company selling its building first, noting of such scheduling that it was “le fait d’en fixer la date d’effet, qui ne paralyse pas le droit de retrait mais en règle les effets”, and censured reasoning that failed to establish the real effectiveness of the shareholder’s withdrawal right. Translated for a British reader: clauses that make leaving theoretical rather than real do not survive judicial review, and the withdrawing shareholder is bought out at the value of their shares, fixed by agreement or by expert valuation.
The final remedy is dissolving the SCI itself. Article 1844-7 of the Civil Code lists the endings, including “Par la dissolution anticipée prononcée par le tribunal à la demande d’un associé pour justes motifs, notamment en cas d’inexécution de ses obligations par un associé, ou de mésentente entre associés paralysant le fonctionnement de la société”. The key precedent for British shareholders trapped in a two-person SCI is the judgment of 16 March 2011, Third Civil Chamber, appeal no. 10-15.459 (Cass. 3rd civ., 16 March 2011, no. 10-15.459), The Court dismissed the shareholder’s appeal in these terms: “Mais attendu qu’ayant exactement retenu que la mésentente existant entre les associés et par suite la disparition de l’affectio societatis ne pouvaient constituer un juste motif de dissolution qu’à la condition de se traduire par une paralysie du fonctionnement de la société, la cour d’appel, qui a souverainement relevé que les difficultés rencontrées n’étaient pas suffisamment graves pour paralyser le fonctionnement social, a rejeté à bon droit la demande de M. X…” In plain English, the lower court was right to refuse dissolution: bad relations and the loss of the shared will to co-operate, the affectio societatis that defines a company, justify winding up only when they paralyse how the company works, and here the difficulties were not grave enough to do so. A British shareholder seeking dissolution should therefore evidence the paralysis, not the bad atmosphere: deadlocked meetings, unsigned accounts, a sale approved by one and vetoed by the other, a manager who cannot act. Dissolution leads to liquidation, the building is sold, creditors paid, and the balance shared. It destroys the vehicle, so withdrawal or a negotiated buyout of the shares almost always deserves the first attempt.
B. What tax applies when the shares or the house are finally sold?
Tax is where British sellers lose the most money through timing errors, so take the mechanics in order. When the family sells the house owned directly, each British seller faces French capital-gains tax on immovable property, computed on the difference between the sale price and the documented purchase price plus evidenced acquisition costs and qualifying works. The notaire calculates, withholds and pays the tax at completion, and the treaty between France and the United Kingdom allocates the taxing right over immovable property to France, with the United Kingdom giving relief against double taxation for its own residents. Keep every invoice for works from the day of purchase: undocumented improvements are treated as if they never happened, and the taxable gain grows accordingly.
When the house sits in an SCI, the family has two different sales to compare: selling the building out of the company, or selling the shares themselves. Selling the shares means a transfer of droits sociaux (company rights), and French formalities are strict: article 1865 of the Civil Code requires that “La cession de parts sociales doit être constatée par écrit.” Registration duty then applies to the buyer, since article 726 of the General Tax Code provides that “Les cessions de droits sociaux sont soumises à un droit d’enregistrement”, at the rate the article fixes for the category of company concerned. For buyers of shares in a property company, that duty rate is materially higher than the headline rate on ordinary share sales, which is why buyers of SCI shares routinely negotiate a discount on the price: they inherit the duty and the company’s history. Sellers, for their part, are taxed on the gain on the shares under the rules for the sale of securities, in their hands personally, because the transparency recalled above follows the gain to each shareholder.
Selling the building out of the SCI produces a gain computed at company level but taxed, again, in each shareholder’s hands in proportion to their rights, under the private capital-gains regime where the SCI has stayed within civil activity. The holding period for relief runs from the SCI’s acquisition of the building, not from when a shareholder joined, which rewards families who buy through the SCI from the start and punishes those who contribute an already-owned house late. One British-specific warning matters here: a family that returns to live in the United Kingdom before the sale may find the French exemptions for a main residence unavailable and the British tax position altered, with the treaty’s tie-breaker and relief articles doing delicate work. The practical checklist before any sale is therefore short and unforgiving: confirm who holds what and since when, compute both sale routes with a notaire and a bilateral tax adviser, verify the buyer’s financing of the duty on shares, and never sign a private agreement, a compromis, without the tax computation attached. A few hundred euros of advice routinely saves tens of thousands in duty and gain, which is the cheapest sentence in this entire guide.
Conclusion
A British family settling in France after Brexit chooses its property structure once and lives with it for decades. Direct ownership is simple and cheap but leaves the survivor unprotected and every disagreement on the road to a court-ordered sale. The tontine clause protects the survivor powerfully, even inside an SCI’s articles as the Court of Cassation confirmed in April 2026, but it freezes the asset while both partners live and survives separations that everyone forgot to tidy up. The SCI costs money and demands discipline, yet it alone gives the family written rules, staged gifts to children, and exits, through withdrawal or dissolution, that courts understand and enforce. When conflict comes, French law never leaves a British co-owner without a door: partition under article 815, judicial authorisation under article 815-5, withdrawal under article 1869, and dissolution for paralysing disagreement under article 1844-7 form a complete ladder, each rung with its procedure and its price. The mistake to avoid is improvising at the moment of crisis what should have been written at the moment of purchase. Take the structure decision before the notaire’s pen moves, align it with a will that chooses the applicable law expressly, review it on every separation, and challenge every refusal, whether of a sale, a withdrawal or a tax bill, through the remedy built for it rather than through resignation.
Need a quick opinion on your case
Our Paris office advises British families on French property structures, blocked sales and Franco-British tax questions. Telephone consultation: 80 EUR including VAT, within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm. Call 06 46 60 58 22 or write via our contact page with a short description of your property and your deadline.