Cabinet Kohen Avocats · Paris

—

Maître Reda KOHEN intervient en droit immobilier, droit des sociétés et droit des affaires à Paris. Première analyse : 80 € TTC, réponse personnelle sous 24 heures.

100 % confidentiel · Secret professionnel · Sans engagement

Article généré par une intelligence artificielle, selon un processus conçu et contrôlé par le cabinet

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

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

Your French Company Just Got Its First CFE Bill While You Live Abroad: Exemptions, Minimum Base and How to Challenge It

You live abroad, you run a French company from a distance, and one morning your online tax account shows a bill you never expected: the cotisation foncière des entreprises, the French local business tax universally known by its acronym, CFE. Your company may have no office in France, no employee on French soil and no profit yet, and still the bill is real, it is due every year, and it must be paid by 15 December. Foreign founders discover this tax late because nothing in the incorporation process makes it obvious: the company is registered, the Kbis (the official identity extract of the company, issued by the greffe, the clerk’s office of the commercial court) arrives, the bank account opens, and then, silently, the CFE clock starts ticking. This guide explains, for a founder or parent company managing a French subsidiary from abroad, when the CFE is due, how the minimum base can tax a company that owns nothing, which exemptions protect newly created companies, how buying an existing business changes the picture, and how to challenge a CFE assessment from another country before the deadline expires. The general framework of setting up and running the company — bank account, Kbis, VAT and first hire — is described in our complete guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder, and the present article takes over exactly where that guide stops: the first local tax bill.

I. Why your French company owes CFE even with no office, no staff and no profit

A. The 1 January rule: whoever operates on that date pays for the whole year

The CFE is a local tax owed each year by any individual or legal entity that carries on a habitual self-employed professional activity in France, which is the wording of the first paragraph of article 1478 of the General Tax Code (Code général des impôts, abbreviated CGI) as recalled by the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, in a decision of 26 March 2026 that every foreign shareholder should read: “La cotisation foncière des entreprises est due chaque année par les personnes physiques ou morales (…) qui exercent à titre habituel une activité professionnelle non salariée” (Conseil d’État, 9th chamber, 26 March 2026, No. 498839). Three features of this rule surprise foreign founders. First, the tax targets the activity, not the profit: a loss-making company pays it. Second, it is assessed once a year, and the person who must pay it for the full year is, as article 1478, I of the CGI states, the taxpayer who carries on the activity on 1 January: “La cotisation foncière des entreprises est due pour l’année entière par le redevable qui exerce l’activité le 1er janvier.” Sell the company on 2 January and the bill for the entire year can still be yours; buy it on 2 January and, symmetrically, you may escape the year’s CFE while the seller pays, subject to the change-of-operator rules examined below. Third, stopping the activity during the year does not wipe the slate clean automatically: the same paragraph provides that a taxpayer who ceases all activity in an establishment owes nothing for the remaining months, except where the activity is transferred or sold, in which case the transferee steps into the tax position. Each of these timing points is decided by the situation on 1 January, a date the foreign director should therefore treat as the single most important tax date of the year, months before the December payment deadline.

The practical consequence for a group managed from abroad is immediate. A foreign parent that incorporates a French société par actions simplifiée (SAS, the flexible joint-stock company most foreign investors choose) in March will owe a full year of CFE for the following year, because the company will be carrying on its activity on the next 1 January, even if the French subsidiary has still signed no contract and earned no revenue by then. Conversely, shutting down the French operation in February does not cancel the bill for the current year: the company was active on 1 January, so the full year is due, and only a complete cessation of all activity in the establishment opens the statutory relief for the remaining months, as article 1478, I of the CGI provides. The exception matters in intra-group reorganisations: where the activity is sold or transferred rather than simply stopped, the relief for the remaining months does not apply, and the question becomes who, between transferor and transferee, bears the year’s tax. From abroad, the lesson is organisational: calendar the 1 January photograph of your French activity every year, because restructurings signed in December or January have CFE consequences that no one mentions at the signing table, and the price of ignoring them is a full year of local tax paid by the wrong entity with no simple way to pass it on contractually after the event.

Foreign founders also misunderstand what counts as a taxable activity. The CFE covers any habitual self-employed professional activity, and the statute expressly deems the letting of furnished property a professional activity, while pure letting of unfurnished residential property stays outside the tax below 100,000 euros of gross receipts. A non-resident who holds French real estate through a French société civile immobilière (SCI, the non-trading property company) and lets it furnished can therefore receive a CFE assessment in the name of the SCI, and, because the partners of an SCI are liable for the company’s debts in proportion to their shares, the bill can legally travel up to the foreign partner himself. That is exactly what happened in the 26 March 2026 case: the administration pursued a Luxembourg-based shareholder for 90 percent of the CFE owed by a French property company for 2016, relying on the subsidiary liability of partners under articles 1857 and 1858 of the Civil Code (Conseil d’État, 9th chamber, 26 March 2026, No. 498839). The shareholder lost on the CFE head of his claim. For a founder living abroad, the message is that the CFE follows the French structure wherever its economic consequences land, including across borders and into the personal assets of a foreign partner of a French property company.

B. The minimum base: how a company that owns nothing still gets a bill

The second shock is the amount. In principle, as article 1467 of the CGI states, the CFE is assessed on the rental value of the buildings subject to property tax, located in France, that the taxpayer had at its disposal for its professional activity during the reference period. A start-up hosted at the founder’s foreign home, a holding company domiciled with a domiciliation agent in Paris, or a service company whose team works remotely may therefore assume the base is zero and the tax is zero. That assumption is wrong, because the statute adds a safety net for local budgets: the minimum base. As article 1647 D of the CGI provides, every CFE taxpayer is subject to a minimum contribution assessed at the place of its principal establishment, computed on a base voted by the municipal council within a statutory scale that depends on turnover: from 250 to 597 euros of base for turnover up to 10,000 euros, from 250 to 1,194 euros between 10,000 and 32,600 euros, from 250 to 2,509 euros between 32,600 and 100,000 euros, from 250 to 4,183 euros between 100,000 and 250,000 euros, from 250 to 5,974 euros between 250,000 and 500,000 euros, and from 250 to 7,769 euros above 500,000 euros. The only escape is the small-receipts exemption in the same article: taxpayers whose turnover or receipts, excluding tax, for the reference period do not exceed 5,000 euros are exempt from the minimum contribution, an exemption the statute places under the European Union de minimis aid regulation. In other words, a French company with no premises but 40,000 euros of turnover pays CFE on a voted minimum base, while a dormant company with almost no receipts may pay nothing at all.

The 26 March 2026 decision turns this minimum base into a litigation lesson for anyone managing evidence from abroad. The taxpayer argued that the property company had no premises for its activity and produced an accounting document showing a negative result for the year ended 31 December 2015, hoping to escape the minimum contribution for 2016. The Conseil d’État approved the appeal court’s rejection of that argument, holding that a bare claim of losses, unaccompanied by any detail capable of establishing the amount of turnover or receipts for the reference period, does not allow the court to assess whether the 5,000-euro exemption applies: “M. B… se bornait (…) à faire valoir que le document comptable qu’il produisait faisait apparaître un résultat négatif de la société pour l’exercice clos le 31 décembre 2015”, so that the court, finding the plea lacked the particulars needed to judge its merits, “n’a ni commis d’erreur de droit, ni méconnu son office, ni statué irrégulièrement” (Conseil d’État, 9th chamber, 26 March 2026, No. 498839). Losses are not turnover: only the exact amount of turnover or receipts for the reference year defined by article 1467 A of the CGI decides the exemption, and a foreign shareholder who keeps the French company’s books offshore must be able to produce that figure, adjusted to twelve months where the reference period is shorter or longer, or the minimum base stands. Note also where the minimum is assessed: at the place of the principal establishment. For a company run from London, Dubai or New York, the principal establishment is the French address on the Kbis — very often a domiciliation address in Paris — so the Paris vote on the minimum base, not any foreign address, fixes the floor of the bill. Choosing a domiciliation address is therefore also choosing a CFE minimum, a point to price before signing the domiciliation contract rather than after receiving the first assessment.

II. Paying less and fighting back from abroad

A. Creation-year exemption, half base, and the declarations that protect them

New companies get a genuine breathing space, but it is shorter and more conditional than founders expect. Where premises other than special energy establishments are created, article 1478, II of the CGI provides that no CFE is due for the year of creation; for the two following years the base is computed on the property the taxpayer had at its disposal on 31 December of the first year of activity; and where premises are created, the new operator’s base is halved for the first year of taxation. The administration’s own guidance confirms the sequence in plain terms: a business is exempt from CFE for its year of creation, up to 31 December of that year, and then benefits from a halved base the following year (see the official CFE guidance on service-public.fr, the French public service portal for businesses). Two traps follow. First, the exemption year is the calendar year of creation, not twelve rolling months: incorporate in November and the “year” lasts two months. Second, the exemption is not automatic in practice without the initial return: in the year of creation the company must file the initial declaration, form 1447-C-SD, with the service des impôts des entreprises (SIE, the local corporate tax office) before 31 December so that the assessment factors for the following year are correctly established, and each year the general CFE return must reach the tax office no later than the second working day after 1 May, as article 1477 of the CGI requires. A founder who incorporates from abroad through a lawyer and then forgets the SIE paperwork can therefore lose the benefit that the statute grants him, simply because the administration never received the form that triggers it.

Buying an existing French business instead of creating one reverses the picture, and foreign buyers regularly confuse the two. Where there is a change of operator, article 1478, IV of the CGI provides that for the two years following the change the base is computed under the same rule as for creations, and that where the change takes effect on 1 January the new operator is taxed for the year of the change on his predecessor’s bases. The Conseil d’État confirmed the mechanics in a takeover case: where the operator changes, the CFE base “est calculée, pour les deux années suivant celle du changement, d’après les biens passibles de taxe foncière dont le redevable a disposé au 31 décembre de la première année d’activité” (Conseil d’État, 9th and 10th chambers combined, 30 September 2022, No. 451948). There is no creation-year exemption for the buyer of a going concern, and the buyer inherits, for two years, a base anchored in the first year of his own operation. Worse, a buyer who believes he has “created” an establishment by refurbishing it may discover that the courts see a mere continuation: in a case about a supermarket reopened eleven months after its predecessor closed, with partly renewed equipment and newly recruited staff, the Conseil d’État held that the interruption, during which local customers could have moved to another shopping area, followed by reopening with new means of production, had to be regarded “non comme un simple changement d’exploitant poursuivant une même activité, mais comme une création d’établissement” (Conseil d’État, 9th and 10th chambers combined, 27 November 2020, No. 427404) — a finding that granted the creation treatment precisely because the facts showed a genuine new establishment rather than the pursuit of the same business. The lesson for a foreign acquirer is symmetrical: a pure takeover keeps the old tax history running, while a demonstrably new establishment, with new equipment, new staff and a broken customer link, can qualify as a creation. Document those facts at signing, because three years later, from another country, reconstructing what the shop looked like on reopening day is nearly impossible.

The change of operator also triggers paperwork with a hard deadline. Where the business is sold or transferred, the new operator must file the initial declaration, form 1447-C-SD, before 1 January of the year following the change, addressed to the SIE, and the administration’s guidance illustrates the point directly: where the change of operator occurs in 2026, the return must be filed no later than 31 December 2026 for the CFE due in 2027 (see service-public.fr, CFE procedures). Miss that filing and the administration taxes whoever its records still show, leaving the buyer to fight an assessment that proper paperwork would have prevented. For two years after the change the new operator is then taxed on the rental value of the property he had at his disposal on 31 December of his first year of activity, the same guidance confirms, echoing article 1478, IV of the CGI. A buyer living abroad should therefore put three dates in the acquisition checklist: the 1 January photograph that decides who owes the year, the 31 December deadline for form 1447-C-SD, and the 31 December of the first year of operation that will anchor the base for the next two years.

B. Paris and Île-de-France specifics, payment calendar, and how to challenge the bill from abroad

For a company whose principal establishment is in Paris or elsewhere in Île-de-France, the CFE machinery works the same way as in the rest of France, but three local features deserve attention. First, the minimum base is local: since article 1647 D of the CGI assesses the minimum at the place of the principal establishment on a base voted locally, a company domiciled in Paris pays the Paris-voted minimum, a company in Boulogne-Billancourt pays that commune’s minimum, and moving the registered office across the périphérique changes the floor of the tax. Founders who compare domiciliation offers should therefore compare the voted minimums as well as the rent. Second, the competent office follows the establishment: the SIE of the place of the principal establishment issues the assessment and receives the returns and the complaint, so a Paris-registered company deals with the Paris tax offices, in French, on Paris timetables, even if its director has never set foot in France. Third, service providers and domiciliation agents in Paris routinely receive the company’s mail but do not always forward a dematerialised notice, and this is the most dangerous feature of the current system: the CFE assessment is issued only online, on the company’s professional tax account, with no paper letter, as the official guidance states (see service-public.fr, payment of the CFE). A founder abroad who never opens that account discovers the bill through a late-payment reminder. The fix is contractual and organisational: give a French accountant or the domiciliation agent an explicit mandate to monitor the online account, and keep personal access credentials current, because “nobody told me” is not a ground for discharge.

The payment calendar itself is rigid. As a rule the CFE must be paid no later than 15 December inclusive, and where that date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday it rolls to the next working day (see service-public.fr, CFE payment deadlines). The methods depend on the previous year’s bill: where the company paid 3,000 euros or less, it pays the balance online by 15 December, with optional monthly or on-due-date direct debit; where it paid more than 3,000 euros, it must in addition pay a deposit equal to 50 percent of the previous year’s CFE, assessed on a dematerialised deposit notice, generally between 26 May and 16 June inclusive, before paying the balance by 15 December. One option matters specifically to non-residents: payment by bank transfer is available only where the liable company is not resident in France and belongs to one of the States on a list set by ministerial order, the same guidance confirms. A foreign-held French company therefore usually pays online from its French account or by direct debit, which presupposes that the French bank account opened at incorporation is still active and that someone checks it. Dunning interest and penalties accrue from the day after the deadline, so the December peak, when the director is closing the group’s own year-end abroad, is exactly when the French file needs a calendar reminder set months in advance.

Where the bill looks wrong, the remedy is the standard tax complaint, the réclamation contentieuse, and it can be pursued entirely from abroad. The deadline is strict: for local direct taxes, complaints must reach the tax administration no later than 31 December of the year following the year the assessment was put into collection, as article R*196-2 of the Tax Procedures Book (Livre des procédures fiscales) provides, whether the complaint follows the collection notice, the event that motivates it, or the payment of the disputed tax where no assessment notice was issued. A CFE assessed in autumn 2026 can therefore generally be challenged until 31 December 2027, and that second deadline is the one to diary the day the online notice appears. On substance, the foreign claimant should plead in the order a court will examine: first, the status issues — exemption for the year of creation under article 1478, II of the CGI, and the 5,000-euro small-receipts exemption from the minimum under article 1647 D of the CGI — with the exact turnover figure for the reference period, because, as the 26 March 2026 decision teaches, invoking losses without stating turnover fails (Conseil d’État, No. 498839); second, the base issues — property destroyed, sold or never at the company’s disposal during the reference period, excluded from the base by article 1467 of the CGI; third, the operator issues — change of operator taxed on the predecessor’s bases only where the change took effect on 1 January, per Conseil d’État, No. 451948, and genuine new establishment versus continuation under Conseil d’État, No. 427404. Attach the Kbis, the lease or domiciliation contract, the filed 1447-C-SD or 1447-M-SD forms, and the turnover calculation. File with the SIE that issued the assessment, keep proof of sending, and diary the administration’s six-month reply period: silence kept for six months is an implied rejection that opens the way to the administrative court. None of this requires travelling to France; it requires complete papers, exact figures, and respect for the 31 December deadline.

Conclusion

The CFE rewards founders who treat it as a calendar rather than a surprise. Note who operates on 1 January, file the creation and change-of-operator returns on time, check the online professional account before December, pay by 15 December or arrange direct debit, and challenge by 31 December of the following year with exact turnover figures rather than general complaints about losses. A company run from abroad pays this tax at its French address, on a locally voted minimum, under rules the Conseil d’État applies strictly and literally. Master those five dates and the first CFE bill becomes a routine entry in the French company’s legal calendar instead of the crisis that reveals the company has no one watching its French mailbox.

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

What our clients say

4,9279 Google reviews
kader ladjouzi
1 month ago

Best real estate and business lawyer in Paris. A compassionate and attentive lawyer, with a wonderful team. Thank you, Maître KOHEN

Translated from French

Janou SAMUEL
2 months 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)
4 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
6 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
7 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.

Jean-pierre Steinmetz
2 days ago

De très bons conseils donnés par Maître Cornu lors de notre entretien du 16 octobre.

John Roberts
3 days ago

Service très professionnel et réactif. L’avocat a rapidement et attentivement vérifié la validité du titre de séjour de mon épouse au regard d’un régime juridique particulier. Son travail nous a apporté des éclaircissements, alors que les démarches administratives habituelles étaient longues et ambiguës. J’ai apprécié son efficacité et son professionnalisme, et je recommande ses services.

Jean-François PAPA
1 week ago

Je tiens à remercier chaleureusement Maître Esther Cornu pour son professionnalisme, sa disponibilité et la qualité de son accompagnement. Dans le cadre d’un dossier particulièrement important pour mon avenir professionnel, elle a su faire preuve d’une grande réactivité, de rigueur et de pédagogie, en prenant le temps de répondre précisément à mes interrogations et de m’expliquer les différentes démarches juridiques. J’apprécie tout particulièrement la clarté de ses analyses, son sérieux et son implication dans le suivi de mon dossier. Un grand merci à Maître Esther Cornu pour son écoute et son accompagnement. Je recommande vivement !

Hamid Agouz
1 week ago

I was pleasantly surprised by the responsiveness of Monsieur Reda Cohen, who took the time to answer my questions regarding my case immediately. It has become so rare nowadays to find a lawyer who is so available, responsive, and attentive, even when it simply comes to answering inquiries. His answers are clear, precise, and reassuring. You can really feel that he takes the time to understand the situation and provide relevant answers. Beyond his excellent Google reviews, it is above all this availability and thoroughness that make all the difference. A huge thank you to Monsieur Reda Cohen for his professionalism and responsiveness. I highly recommend him!

Translated from French

Sandra Imbert
2 weeks ago

A huge thank you to Maître Esther Cornu from Kohen Avocats for her support during a particularly difficult time. Her attentiveness, empathy, and humanity touched me deeply. She was able to answer my questions with clarity and sensitivity, while demonstrating great professionalism and fully respecting the confidentiality of the case. Beyond her professional qualities, I met a deeply humane lawyer whose support made a real difference. I sincerely recommend her.

Translated from French

Salon Sisters
2 weeks ago

Thank you, Maître Kohen, for your professionalism, responsiveness, and dedication. You handled my case perfectly with great attentiveness, rigor, and efficiency. I was very satisfied with your support and the work accomplished. I recommend him without hesitation!

Translated from French

Djamel Haddouche
2 weeks ago

I am facing a dispute with my employer, and the support provided by Maître Hassan COHEN as well as Maître Esther Cornu is excellent. The answers are clear and well-thought-out, they genuinely listen, and interactions are very pleasant. Thank you again, I highly recommend.

Translated from French

Frederic Lopes
2 weeks ago

Excellent professional. I highly recommend for their dedication and expertise.

Translated from French

Faiza Traduction
12 hours ago
Alain Arsaut
3 days ago

Vu Hassan au JT

Beaudrique Abao
3 days ago
Krep Events Traiteur Breton
1 week ago

The article is very clear.

Translated from French

TOULEIMAT HACHEM
1 week ago
emilie lepicard
2 weeks ago
Zakaria Airbnb
2 weeks ago
إبراهيم عيسى
2 weeks ago