A British couple in their sixties own a stone house near Sarlat. He has two children from a first marriage in Manchester; she has a daughter in Bristol. They want three things that sound simple and prove difficult: the surviving spouse must be able to go on living in the house, the children must actually receive something, and nobody must be able to force a sale over Sunday lunch. Since Brexit they buy and inherit as third-country nationals, but the answer to their puzzle is a very French instrument used in a particular way: the family property company, the société civile immobilière (SCI), with its shares split between usufruit and nue-propriété. The usufruitier, usually a parent, has the use of the shares and their income; the nu-propriétaire, usually a child, owns the bare title and waits. This article explains, in plain English for a British reader, how split SCI shares work, what each side may and must do, how France taxes the arrangement, where the forced share of the children bites, and how to go to court when a gift of shares is attacked or a transfer is blocked. Every French term is explained at first use.
An SCI is a non-trading property company: the company owns the bricks, the family owns shares (parts sociales) in the company. Splitting those shares means the parents can hand the children’s slice to the children now, while keeping the use, the income and very often the management until the second death. It is the closest French law comes to having your cake and eating it, but the slices are cut by strict rules on gifts, on the children’s forced share (réserve héréditaire) and on tax. This article works through the mechanics first and the guards second, and ends with a decision tree for British families.
I. How do you split SCI shares between spouse and children, and who gets what?
A. Usufruit and bare ownership over the shares: use, income, votes and debts
Start with the two building blocks. The company block is created by contract between at least two people. Article 1832 of the Civil Code states 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 », which means the company is formed by persons who agree to devote property or effort to a shared venture. Once registered, the SCI has legal personality of its own: Article 1845 confirms that « Les dispositions du présent chapitre sont applicables à toutes les sociétés civiles », so the civil-company rules govern every SCI. The official service-public.fr guidance describes the practical result: the members place their buildings inside an autonomous structure with legal personality, run by a manager (gérant), and the family writes tailor-made articles (statuts) allocating decisions, powers and the fate of the shares.
The split-ownership block is the démembrement, the division of ownership into use and bare title. Article 578 of the Civil Code defines the first half: « L’usufruit est le droit de jouir des choses dont un autre a la propriété, comme le propriétaire lui-même, mais à la charge d’en conserver la substance », the right to enjoy things owned by another as the owner himself would, while preserving their substance. Applied to SCI shares, the usufructuary parent votes on the company’s daily life within the limits set by law and the articles, receives the dividends and the benefit of the house the company makes available, and must preserve the capital for the bare owners. The children, as nus-propriétaires, own the substance: they cannot move into the house or pocket the rent today, but nothing can be sold over their heads without their consent where the law requires it, and at the usufructuary’s death the two halves join back together in their hands, with no new transfer needed. For the Sarlat couple, the pattern is therefore legible: each parent gives the bare ownership of his or her shares to his or her own children and keeps the usufruct, very often with a gift between spouses layered on top, so the survivor keeps the full use of the whole house while each bloodline’s capital is already earmarked.
Two clauses of the articles decide whether this construction survives contact with real family life. The first is approval (agrément). Article 1861 of the Civil Code provides that « Les parts sociales ne peuvent être cédées qu’avec l’agrément de tous les associés »: shares transfer only with the approval of all members, unless the articles lower the threshold, hand approval to the manager, or waive it for members, spouses, parents or children. Gifts of bare ownership to the children typically pass without approval where the articles waive it for transfers to descendants, which is exactly what a British family usually wants; but a transfer of the usufruct to a new spouse, or a sale of bare ownership outside the family, can be stopped cold by the other members. Draft the clause for the family you will be in twenty years, not the family around the table today. The second is management. The manager convenes meetings, signs the insurance, hires the roofer and presents the accounts, and the articles can keep a parent in that chair for life or rotate it. Where the manager is also the usufructuary, power concentrates in one pair of hands, which is comfortable until the children ask to see the books. The official guidance warns that running an SCI means genuine chores, accounts, meetings and an annual tax return, and the bare-owner children have every right to demand that the paperwork be real.
The alternative the split avoids is worth stating once, because many British buyers drift into it without advice. Without a company, co-ownership means indivision, and Article 815 of the Civil Code provides 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 »: nobody can be forced to remain in co-ownership, and partition can always be demanded. Three siblings inheriting the villa directly can therefore be dragged to a sale by the one who wants cash, whereas three siblings holding bare ownership of SCI shares while their stepmother enjoys the usufruct cannot force the sale of the walls at all. The official guidance makes the same point from the company’s side: where one member wishes to sell his shares, he does not compel the others to sell the building. That single sentence is the commercial reason split SCI shares exist.
B. Handing over the bare ownership now: gifts, allowances and keeping control
The handover itself is a gift (donation) of bare ownership, signed before a notaire, and its economics explain the popularity of the device. The official guidance notes that an SCI allows a progressive transfer spread over time: while keeping management, each parent can transfer shares to the descendants in successive gifts, using recurring allowances of 100,000 euros per child and 31,865 euros per grandchild, renewable every fifteen years. Because only the bare ownership is given, its value is a fraction of full ownership, scaled to the usufructuary’s age, so each gift consumes less allowance than a gift of whole shares. And because the shares are valued net of the company’s debts, such as the outstanding French mortgage on the house, the taxable base shrinks further. A British father who gives each of his two children the bare ownership of a slice of shares every few years can therefore move the whole capital across within the allowances while keeping the use of the house and, if the articles say so, the manager’s chair until his death.
Control after the gift rests on three pillars that must be built deliberately. First, the retained usufruct itself: the parent keeps the income and the use, and the children cannot sell the house out from under him because the company, not the children, owns it. Second, the management clause: naming the surviving spouse as manager, or co-managers with cascading replacements, avoids a vacuum at the first death. Third, the approval clause described above, which filters every future entry. What the parent cannot keep is any escape from the children’s forced share, discussed in Part II, nor any escape from liability: members answer for company debts indefinitely, each in proportion to his holding and only after the company itself has failed to pay, and a French bank financing the purchase will usually ask the members to stand surety (caution) regardless. Gifts must also be complete and honest: backdating, hidden cash balancing payments (soultes occultes) or shares given to one child with a private promise to pass them on are the classic materials of the lawsuits Part II describes. A gift that is meant to be seen should be drafted to be seen.
II. How are split SCI shares taxed and inherited, and what do you do when it goes wrong?
A. Which French taxes fall on the usufructuary, the bare owner and the company?
Income tax follows the income, and the statute says so expressly for split shares. Article 8 of the General Tax Code provides that « En cas de démembrement de la propriété de tout ou partie des parts sociales, l’usufruitier est soumis à l’impôt sur le revenu pour la quote-part correspondant aux droits dans les bénéfices que lui confère sa qualité d’usufruitier. Le nu-propriétaire n’est pas soumis à l’impôt sur le revenu à raison du résultat imposé au nom de l’usufruitier »: where shares are split, the usufructuary pays income tax on the slice of profits his usufruct gives him, and the bare owner pays nothing on the profit taxed in the usufructuary’s name. Where the SCI lets the house unfurnished and has not elected for corporation tax, the usufructuary parent therefore declares the rental result in France, whether or not the company actually distributes a euro, while no income tax falls on the children’s bare ownership. The scope of that transparency is set by Article 1655 ter of the General Tax Code, which covers companies whose actual sole purpose is « soit la construction ou l’acquisition d’immeubles ou de groupes d’immeubles en vue de leur division par fractions destinées à être attribuées aux associés en propriété ou en jouissance, soit la gestion de ces immeubles ou groupes d’immeubles ainsi divisés », building or buying property to divide it between members or managing property so divided. British usufructuaries who live in France declare this income with the rest of their French return; those who live in Britain declare it in France first, because the rent arises here, and the France-United Kingdom double tax treaty of 1986, still in force after Brexit, then decides how Britain relieves the double charge. Two reliefs are lost on the way, and the official guidance names them: the 30 per cent reduction on the main home does not apply for wealth-tax purposes where the building sits in an SCI, and the Dutreil 75 per cent relief on business shares is closed to companies that manage property.
Sales are taxed at two levels, and the family should model both before signing anything. Where the company sells the house, Article 150 U of the General Tax Code provides that « les plus-values réalisées par les personnes physiques ou les sociétés ou groupements qui relèvent des articles 8 à 8 ter , lors de la cession à titre onéreux de biens immobiliers bâtis ou non bâtis ou de droits relatifs à ces biens, sont passibles de l’impôt sur le revenu »: gains by individuals or transparent companies on sales for value of buildings, land or rights over them bear income tax, with relief accruing over the years of ownership. Where a non-resident sells shares or property, Article 244 bis A adds a levy collected at source: « Sous réserve des conventions internationales, les plus-values, telles que définies aux e bis et e ter du I de l’article 164 B , réalisées par les personnes et organismes mentionnés au 2 du I lors de la cession des biens ou droits mentionnés au 3 sont soumises à un prélèvement ». A British bare-owner child living in London who sells his bare ownership therefore meets French tax mechanics at the door, before the treaty divides the final bill. The full chronology of a sale by a non-resident, including the representative the seller may need to appoint, is worked through in our guide for British residents of the United Kingdom selling a French second home, which should be read before any preliminary contract (compromis) is signed. Wealth tax is the third layer: Article 964 institutes « un impôt annuel sur les actifs immobiliers désigné sous le nom d’impôt sur la fortune immobilière », the annual IFI, above 1,300,000 euros of qualifying assets, and split shares count towards the threshold by reference to the underlying French bricks. Two judicial warnings close the picture. In 2019 the Commercial Chamber rejected a challenge to a wealth-tax reassessment where an SCI that had not elected for corporation tax had placed a large gain to reserve (Cass. com., 28 March 2019, appeal no. 17-23.671, official decision, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2019:CO00436): the company, « n’ayant pas opté pour le régime de l’impôt sur les sociétés, a réalisé une plus-value immobilière, en 2007, dont les associés ont décidé la mise en réserve », and the administration could still count the undistributed gain. And in September 2025 the Second Civil Chamber recalled that the European social-security coordination enshrines a single-legislation principle, « selon lequel la personne à laquelle les règlements s’appliquent n’est soumise qu’à la législation d’un seul État membre, en sorte que celle-ci, affiliée à un régime de sécurité sociale d’un État membre, ne doit pas contribuer au régime de sécurité sociale d’un autre État membre » (Cass. 2nd civ., 25 September 2025, appeal no. 22-24.634, official decision, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:C200872, citing CJUE, 26 February 2015, De Ruyter, C-623/13). That coordination no longer covers British residents as such since Brexit, but the case shows why a parent working in London while the family lives in Lyon should settle which State’s legislation covers which income before paying twice.
B. Succession in split shares: the forced share, English wills and going to court
At death the bare ownership and the extinguished usufruct join in the children’s hands, and French succession law audits the whole construction. Its cornerstone is the réserve héréditaire. Article 912 defines it as « la part des biens et droits successoraux dont la loi assure la dévolution libre de charges à certains héritiers dits réservataires », the slice the law guarantees, clear of encumbrances, to protected heirs. Article 913 fixes the arithmetic: « Les libéralités, soit par actes entre vifs, soit par testament, ne pourront excéder la moitié des biens du disposant, s’il ne laisse à son décès qu’un enfant ; le tiers, s’il laisse deux enfants ; le quart, s’il en laisse trois ou un plus grand nombre ». Gifts of bare ownership count towards the disposable share and are fictitiously reunited with the estate for the calculation. In June 2026 the Court of Cassation restated the method: « Aux termes de l’article 922 du code civil, la réduction se détermine en formant une masse de tous les biens existant au décès », gifts between living persons being fictitiously brought back into that mass, and « lorsque la libéralité excède la quotité disponible, le gratifié, successible ou non successible, doit indemniser les héritiers réservataires à concurrence de la portion excessive de la libéralité » (Cass. 1st civ., 10 June 2026, appeal no. 24-10.363, official decision, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2026:C100384). The remedy is normally money, not unwinding: the over-given child pays the others an indemnity. The same decision shows judges looking through the company form, since transfers of shares in a family property company were found « frauduleusement organisées pour divertir ces parts de la succession en vue de priver » a protected heir of his rights and ordered back into the mass. A father who gives everything to the children of the second marriage while the usufruct masks the imbalance will therefore meet the same audit as a father who gives the bricks directly. Value the gifts honestly at the time, keep the valuations, and test the fractions before the notaire closes the file.
British families then ask about the English will. The European Succession Regulation No 650/2012, which France applies, provides in Article 22(1) that a person may choose the law of the State of his or her nationality, held at the time of the choice or at death, to govern the succession as a whole, the choice being express in a testamentary disposition or shown by its terms. A British national can designate English law for the whole succession, and that designation survives Brexit because the Regulation looks at nationality rather than EU membership. But it must be express and valid, it governs the succession as a whole rather than selecting the villa alone, and French courts still examine gifts and company operations that drain the estate. Our full guide on British wills, French houses and the choice for English law works through the drafting that makes such a clause stand up. Where the quarrel breaks out, the remedies are court-shaped: opening of the succession accounts, fictitious reunion of gifts, reduction of the excessive slice, and the penalties of concealment (recel successoral) for hidden assets. And one remedy favours the surviving spouse directly. In March 2025 the Court of Cassation quashed a preferential grant made to buyers with no right to ask, holding that « si l’attribution préférentielle peut être demandée, sous les conditions prévues par la loi, dans le partage des indivisions de nature familiale, même d’origine conventionnelle, elle ne peut l’être que par le conjoint, par le partenaire d’un pacte civil de solidarité ou par tout héritier » (Cass. 1st civ., 5 March 2025, appeal no. 22-22.143, official decision, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:C100144). Preferential allocation of the family property belongs to the spouse, the civil partner or an heir: the surviving wife can therefore ask the court to allocate her the house itself against compensation, while a stranger who bought a slice of co-ownership cannot. In practice the blocked heir writes first to the notaire, then petitions the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) of the place where the succession opened, within the time limits that run from the death or from discovery of the concealment, before the shares move again.
Conclusion
For the Sarlat couple of the introduction, the answer is now legible. Give the bare ownership of the SCI shares to the children of each bloodline now, within the recurring allowances and net of the mortgage; keep the usufruct and the management so the survivor lives in the house and runs the company undisturbed; write the approval clause for the family of twenty years hence; and test every gift against the forced share before signing, because the court will reunite excessive gifts with the estate fictitiously and order money compensation, and will look through share transfers designed to empty a protected heir’s rights. Budget the three taxes as you go: income tax on the usufructuary’s slice even undistributed, French gains mechanics with a levy at source where a non-resident sells, and the annual wealth tax above 1,300,000 euros with undistributed company gains still visible. Choose English law expressly if it suits the family, draft the clause so it survives, and at the first blocked transfer or hidden gift put the file before the judicial court rather than bargaining with whoever already holds the shares. Built early, valued honestly and run as a real company, split SCI shares let a Franco-British family protect the survivor and pass the bricks at once; built late or run casually, they buy the most expensive lesson in the French succession code.