When a British family settles in France, or simply keeps a French holiday home while living in Britain, one question keeps coming back at every kitchen table from Kent to the Dordogne: how much French inheritance tax will our children actually have to pay when we die? The French answer has nothing to do with the British one. There is no single family pot taxed once at 40 per cent. France taxes each heir separately, on the net share that heir receives, after a personal allowance known as an abattement, and at progressive rates that depend on the family link. Get the calculation wrong and your children can face a bill worth tens of thousands of euros; get the family position wrong and the rate can jump to 60 per cent.
This guide works like a calculator in words. It shows how the allowance and the rate bands combine for children, what changes when the deceased or the heir lives in Britain, which relatives pay nothing and which pay the top rate, how life insurance and gifts alter the bill, and how to challenge an assessment you believe is wrong. Every decisive rule below is quoted from the statute or the court decision that states it, with a link to the official text, so you can check the wording yourself before you act. French legal terms are explained the first time they appear. One preliminary point matters throughout: choosing English law for your succession, which many British wills do, governs who inherits, not how much tax France levies. The tax calculation follows French tax law even when English law governs the devolution of the estate, a distinction explained in our guide to choosing English law for a French house while protecting your children.
I. How Much France Inheritance Tax Will Your Children Actually Pay?
A. France Inheritance Tax Calculator: the 100,000 Euro Allowance and the Rate Bands
French inheritance tax is part of a wider charge called droits de mutation à titre gratuit, literally the duties on transfers free of charge, which covers both gifts made during lifetime and inheritances received on death. The statute fixes the charge in these terms: “Les droits de mutation à titre gratuit sont fixés aux taux indiqués dans les tableaux ci-après, pour la part nette revenant à chaque ayant droit” — in other words, Transfer duties are set at the rates shown in the tables below, on the net share received by each beneficiary (article 777 of the General Tax Code). Three words do a lot of work in that sentence. The tax is computed on the part nette, the net share, meaning debts of the estate are deducted first. It is computed par ayant droit, heir by heir, so each child is taxed separately on what that child receives. And it follows statutory tables, which differ according to the relationship between the deceased and the heir.
For children, the starting point is the allowance. The Code provides that “il est effectué un abattement de 100 000 € sur la part de chacun des ascendants et sur la part de chacun des enfants vivants ou représentés par suite de prédécès ou de renonciation” — in other words, an allowance of 100,000 euros is applied to the share of each parent and to the share of each living child, or of each child represented as a result of predecease or renunciation (article 779, I, of the General Tax Code). In plain terms, each child deducts 100,000 euros from what he or she receives before any rate applies. Representation, the représentation successorale, means that if a child died before the parent, that child’s own children step into his or her shoes and share the allowance according to the rules of intestate devolution.
Whatever remains above the allowance falls into the progressive bands of Table I of article 777: 5 per cent up to 8,072 euros, 10 per cent from 8,072 to 12,109 euros, 15 per cent from 12,109 to 15,932 euros, 20 per cent from 15,932 to 552,324 euros, then 30, 40 and 45 per cent on the higher slices. Take a concrete and very common British case. A widowed father, tax-resident in France, leaves a French house worth 600,000 euros to his two children in equal shares. Each child receives 300,000 euros, deducts the 100,000 euro allowance, and is taxed on 200,000 euros. The bands give 403.60 euros on the first slice, 403.70 euros on the second, 573.45 euros on the third, and 36,813.60 euros at 20 per cent on the remaining 184,068 euros, a total of about 38,194 euros per child and roughly 76,389 euros for the two of them. The arithmetic is simple once the method is clear, and every dispute with the tax office starts by checking these three steps: the net share, the allowance actually applied, and the band in which each slice was placed.
Two refinements complete the picture for children. Where an heir cannot earn a normal living because of a physical or mental disability, whether congenital or acquired, the Code grants a further allowance, cumulative with the family one: “il est effectué un abattement de 159 325 € sur la part de tout héritier, légataire ou donataire, incapable de travailler dans des conditions normales de rentabilité, en raison d’une infirmité physique ou mentale, congénitale ou acquise” — in other words, an allowance of 159,325 euros is applied to the share of any heir, legatee or donee who is unable to work under normal conditions of profitability because of a physical or mental infirmity, whether congenital or acquired (article 779, II). And where the parent gave property away during lifetime, the earlier gifts are pulled back into the calculation. The statute states that “La perception est effectuée en ajoutant à la valeur des biens compris dans la donation ou la déclaration de succession celle des biens qui ont fait l’objet de donations antérieures, à l’exception de celles passées depuis plus de quinze ans” — in other words, The duty is levied by adding to the value of the assets in the gift or the succession declaration the value of the assets covered by earlier gifts, except those made more than fifteen years ago (article 784 of the General Tax Code). This mechanism, the rappel fiscal, is examined in the second part of this guide, because it is both the main planning lever and the main source of reassessments.
B. France Inheritance Tax Non-Resident Rules: Who Pays Where When Britain Is Involved
British families are mobile by definition, and the first question is always which country taxes what. French law answers with a two-branch rule based on the tax domicile, the domicile fiscal, of the deceased. The statute provides: “Sont soumis aux droits de mutation à titre gratuit : 1° Les biens meubles et immeubles situés en France ou hors de France, et notamment les fonds publics, parts d’intérêts, biens ou droits composant un trust défini à l’article 792-0 bis et produits qui y sont capitalisés, créances et généralement toutes les valeurs mobilières françaises ou étrangères de quelque nature qu’elles soient, lorsque le donateur ou le défunt a son domicile fiscal en France au sens de l’article 4 B” — in other words, The following are subject to transfer duties: 1. movable and immovable property situated in France or outside France, including public funds, interests, assets or rights forming part of a trust defined in article 792-0 bis and capitalised income, debts and generally all French or foreign securities of any kind, where the donor or the deceased was tax-resident in France within the meaning of article 4 B (article 750 ter of the General Tax Code). Where the deceased was not French tax-resident, the second branch taxes only the movable and immovable property situated in France, whether held directly or through companies or trusts.
The Cour de cassation, France’s supreme court for civil and tax matters, has confirmed how strictly this territorial rule is read. In a judgment of 18 November 2020 it restated the principle that “sont soumis aux droits de mutation à titre gratuit les biens meubles et immeubles situés en France ou hors de France lorsque le donateur ou le défunt a son domicile fiscal en France au sens de l’article 4 B” — in other words, movable and immovable property situated in France or outside France is subject to transfer duties where the donor or the deceased was tax-resident in France within the meaning of article 4 B, and it added, for assets held in a trust, that “le fait générateur des droits de mutation à titre gratuit est constitué par le transfert de propriété, qui, s’agissant de biens placés dans un trust, s’opère par l’effet de la distribution de l’actif du trust au bénéficiaire final, au jour de sa clôture” — in other words, the event giving rise to transfer duties is the transfer of ownership which, for assets placed in a trust, occurs through the distribution of the trust assets to the final beneficiary, on the day the trust is wound up (Commercial Chamber, 18 November 2020, no. 18-14.242). Two practical consequences follow for British readers. If you live in France at death, your worldwide estate, including a cottage in Cornwall or shares in London, falls in principle within the French charge, with the treaty credit described below softening the double hit. If you live in Britain at death and leave a house in the Dordogne, France taxes the French assets only, and it computes the bill on those French assets alone while still granting the allowances of domestic law.
The double charge is then relieved by the succession convention between France and the United Kingdom. Under its official commentary, the country of domicile credits the tax paid in the other country on the same assets, capped at its own tax on those assets (BOFiP, Franco-British succession convention, liquidation of duties). The commentary adds that where the deceased was domiciled in the United Kingdom, French succession duty still falls on the French-situated assets, computed under ordinary domestic rules with all allowances granted (BOFiP, succession of a person domiciled in the United Kingdom).
Look at the British side of the mirror before concluding that France is uniquely expensive. Under United Kingdom rules, inheritance tax starts where the estate exceeds the £325,000 threshold, the standard rate is 40 per cent above the threshold, everything left above the threshold to a spouse or civil partner passes free, and passing the family home to direct descendants can lift the threshold to £500,000 (gov.uk, How Inheritance Tax works). A British family can therefore owe tax in both countries on the same French house, with each country crediting the other’s levy within the limits of the convention. The planning question is never whether one country or the other taxes, but how the allowances of each are combined and documented, which is why the traps in the second part deserve close attention.
II. The Traps That Inflate the Bill and How to Challenge It
A. Spouse, PACS Partner, Siblings and Stepchildren: Who Is Exempt and Who Pays 60 per cent
Not every close relative is treated equally, and British families are often surprised twice: once pleasantly, once not. The pleasant surprise concerns married couples and civil partners. French law states plainly: “Sont exonérés de droits de mutation par décès le conjoint survivant et le partenaire lié au défunt par un pacte civil de solidarité.” — in other words, The surviving spouse and the partner bound to the deceased by a civil solidarity pact are exempt from death duties. (article 796-0 bis of the General Tax Code). The pacte civil de solidarité, universally called the PACS, is the French registered civil partnership, and a surviving PACS partner pays no French succession duty at all. Nothing needs calculating on the spouse’s or partner’s share; the bill falls entirely on the other heirs.
The position of brothers and sisters is narrower and frequently misunderstood. A sibling can be fully exempt, but only on strict cumulative conditions: “Est exonérée de droits de mutation par décès la part de chaque frère ou soeur, célibataire, veuf, divorcé ou séparé de corps, à la double condition : 1° Qu’il soit, au moment de l’ouverture de la succession, âgé de plus de cinquante ans ou atteint d’une infirmité le mettant dans l’impossibilité de subvenir par son travail aux nécessités de l’existence ; 2° Qu’il ait été constamment domicilié avec le défunt pendant les cinq années ayant précédé le décès.” — in other words, The share of each brother or sister who is single, widowed, divorced or legally separated is exempt from death duties, subject to two cumulative conditions: 1. that at the time the succession opens, he or she is over fifty or suffers from an infirmity making it impossible to provide for his or her needs through work; 2. that he or she lived continuously with the deceased during the five years before the death. (article 796-0 ter of the General Tax Code). Failing that, a sibling gets a modest allowance, since “il est effectué en cas de donation ou, lorsque les dispositions de l’article 796-0 ter ne sont pas applicables, en cas de succession, un abattement de 15 932 € sur la part de chacun des frères ou sœurs vivants ou représentés” — in other words, an allowance of 15,932 euros is applied to the share of each living brother or sister, or of each brother or sister represented as a result of predecease or renunciation (article 779, IV), and pays 35 per cent up to 24,430 euros and 45 per cent beyond.
The Cour de cassation polices the boundary of that sibling exemption strictly, and its most recent warning concerns PACS partners directly. Ruling on an heir who claimed the sibling exemption while bound by a PACS, the Court held that “l’exonération prévue par ce dernier texte ne peut bénéficier à une personne qui, au jour de l’ouverture de la succession, était liée à un tiers par un pacte civil de solidarité” — in other words, the exemption provided for in that text cannot benefit a person who, on the day the succession opened, was bound to a third party by a civil solidarity pact, quashing the appeal judgment that had read the word single as merely unmarried (Commercial Chamber, 28 May 2025, no. 21-16.632). A PACS partner who inherits as a sibling, or alongside siblings, cannot therefore cumulate the partner’s position with the sibling’s exemption, even though the partner’s own share as partner is exempt under article 796-0 bis.
The unpleasant surprise concerns stepchildren. A beau-enfant, the child of your spouse who is not your own child, counts as a non-relative for the rate tables unless you have adopted him or her. The statute taxes at 60 per cent all shares passing “Entre parents au-delà du 4e degré et entre personnes non-parentes” — in other words, between relatives beyond the fourth degree and between unrelated persons (article 777, Table III). Blended British families, extremely common among couples who met later in life and bought in France together, must face this arithmetic: without adoption or dedicated planning, the stepchild’s share of the French house can be taxed at 60 per cent, a result that shocks heirs raised on English testamentary freedom and equal treatment of stepchildren under a will.
Life insurance, the assurance-vie, deserves its own warning because so many British residents hold one as their main savings vehicle. Sums paid by an insurer on death fall under a specific levy, since “les sommes, rentes ou valeurs quelconques dues directement ou indirectement par un ou plusieurs organismes d’assurance et assimilés, à raison du décès de l’assuré, sont assujetties à un prélèvement à concurrence de la part revenant à chaque bénéficiaire de ces sommes, rentes ou valeurs” — in other words, any sums, annuities or values owed directly or indirectly by one or more insurance bodies, on the death of the policyholder, are subject to a levy on the share received by each beneficiary of those sums, annuities or values (article 990 I of the General Tax Code). Alongside that levy, the civil law can reclassify excessive premiums. The Insurance Code states that “Ces règles ne s’appliquent pas non plus aux sommes versées par le contractant à titre de primes, à moins que celles-ci n’aient été manifestement exagérées eu égard à ses facultés” — in other words, These rules also do not apply to sums paid by the policyholder as premiums, unless those premiums were manifestly excessive having regard to his or her means, and the courts apply a precise test: “Le caractère manifestement exagéré des primes d’assurance vie s’apprécie, non pas en proportion de l’actif successoral, mais au moment du versement des primes au regard de l’âge, des situations patrimoniale et familiale du souscripteur, et de l’utilité du versement” — in other words, Whether life-insurance premiums are manifestly excessive is assessed, not by reference to the size of the estate, but at the time the premiums were paid, having regard to the policyholder’s age, financial and family situation, and the usefulness of the payment (Court of Appeal of Grenoble, 2 July 2025, no. 23/03462). The heirs who allege excessiveness carry the burden of proof, and they do not always win: in Bordeaux, heirs sought the return to the estate of 363,101.65 euros of premiums, arguing that a 90-year-old woman of modest means had poured 90 per cent of her wealth into two contracts, yet the court dismissed the claim entirely, ordering that “REJETTE les demandes de rapport au titre de primes excessives et de donation indirecte ainsi que la demande de partage complémentaire” — in other words, the claims for return of allegedly excessive premiums and for indirect gift, and the claim for a supplementary partition, are REJECTED (Judicial Court of Bordeaux, 21 April 2026, no. 24/05894). An assurance-vie is a powerful tool, but funding it at 90 with nearly everything you own invites exactly this kind of litigation from the other heirs.
B. Reduce the Bill and Challenge the Assessment: Gifts, Démembrement and the Réclamation
Three lawful levers reduce the bill, and one formal procedure challenges it. The first lever is timing your gifts. Because earlier gifts within fifteen years are added back under the rappel fiscal, gifts spaced more than fifteen years apart each attract a fresh allowance. The Montpellier Court of Appeal recently restated the whole mechanism in a dispute about a 2008 gift followed by a succession: “pour le calcul des droits de mutation à titre gratuit, la loi prévoit un certain nombre d’abattements venant en déduction de la valeur vénale des biens transmis (article 779 du code général des impôts)” — in other words, for the computation of transfer duties, the statute provides a number of allowances deducted from the market value of the transferred assets (article 779 of the General Tax Code), adding that the general family allowance “s’applique une fois tous les 15 ans entre un même donateur/défunt et un même donataire/héritier” — in other words, applies once every 15 years between the same donor or deceased and the same donee or heir (Court of Appeal of Montpellier, 27 January 2026, no. 24/03078). In that case the allowance for a parent-to-child transfer had been 151,950 euros at the time of the 2008 gift and stood at 100,000 euros when the succession opened, and the heir’s attempt to obtain a further 100,000 euro reduction of the taxable base failed: the court “Confirme la décision implicite de la direction générale des finances publiques de rejet de la réclamation” — in other words, Confirms the implied decision of the public finances administration rejecting the claim. The lesson cuts both ways. Staggering gifts across fifteen-year windows genuinely multiplies the allowances, as our guide to passing wealth through gifts and life insurance while staying within the reserve explains, but asking for the same allowance twice on the same fifteen-year relationship genuinely fails.
The second lever is splitting ownership over time, the démembrement de propriété. Under this arrangement one person holds the usufruit, the right to use the property and take its income, while another holds the nue-propriété, the bare ownership that becomes full ownership when the usufruct ends, usually on the usufructuary’s death. French tax law values each part by statute: “la valeur de la nue-propriété et de l’usufruit est déterminée par une quotité de la valeur de la propriété entière, conformément au barème ci-après” — in other words, the value of the bare ownership and of the usufruct is determined as a proportion of the value of the full ownership, in accordance with the scale below, with the proportion depending on the usufructuary’s age, so that for an usufructuary past 71 the usufruct counts for 40 per cent and the bare ownership for 60 per cent (article 669 of the General Tax Code). A 75-year-old British mother who gives her 400,000 euro French house to her two children while keeping the usufruct for herself is therefore taxed, and taxes her children, on only 60 per cent of the value, 240,000 euros, or 120,000 euros per child. After each child’s 100,000 euro allowance, only 20,000 euros per child is taxable, producing roughly 3,194 euros of duty per child instead of about 38,194 euros on an outright gift of a 600,000 euro house split two ways. The surviving parent keeps a roof over her head, the children lock in today’s value, and the later reunion of ownership on death attracts no further duty. The technique demands careful drafting, because a retained power that looks like disguised full ownership can be recharacterised, but the arithmetic itself is statutory.
The third element is not a lever but a shield: the formal challenge, the réclamation. Start with the calendar. Heirs must file the succession declaration, the déclaration de succession, within a strict period: “De six mois, à compter du jour du décès, lorsque celui dont on recueille la succession est décédé en France métropolitaine; D’une année, dans tous les autres cas.” — in other words, Six months from the day of death, where the person whose succession is being received died in metropolitan France; one year in all other cases. (article 641 of the General Tax Code). A British family dealing with a death in France from a London home must therefore move faster than the one-year rule they might assume, because the six-month period runs from a death on French soil. Once the assessment is paid or notified, an heir who believes the office misapplied an allowance, a band, the domicile analysis or the treaty credit files a reasoned claim to the administration. That claim “doivent être présentées à l’administration au plus tard le 31 décembre de la deuxième année suivant celle” of the recovery or payment event — in other words, no later than 31 December of the second year following the relevant year (article R*196-1 of the Book of Tax Procedures). Miss that New Year’s Eve deadline and the claim is inadmissible, however strong the merits. If the administration rejects the claim expressly or by silence, the heir can take the dispute to the judicial court, armed with the declaration, the assessment notice, proof of payment, the family documents establishing each allowance, and, where both countries taxed, the treaty computation showing the credit due. The Montpellier case above is a useful caution: courts uphold the administration whenever the fifteen-year relationship or the allowance arithmetic is against the heir, so a challenge should be launched only after recomputing the three steps, net share, allowance, bands, with the official texts in hand.
Conclusion
For a British family with French assets, the inheritance calculation always follows the same order. Identify who was tax-resident where, so that article 750 ter and the Franco-British convention allocate the tax base between the two countries with a capped credit. Compute each heir’s net share separately, deduct the allowance that matches the true family link, 100,000 euros per child, exemption for a spouse or PACS partner, strict conditions for a sibling, 60 per cent for a stepchild treated as a non-relative, and run the progressive bands of article 777. Then test the result against the three classic correctors: earlier gifts within fifteen years that must be added back, life-insurance premiums that must survive the manifestly-excessive test judged at the time of payment, and split ownership that can lawfully shrink the taxable base while protecting the surviving parent’s home. Where the assessment departs from that method, the declaration deadlines and the réclamation calendar give you a structured path to put it right, provided you move within the statutory time limits and keep every supporting document. Done in that order, the French bill holds no mystery, and no heir pays a euro more than the statute requires.