Inheritance tax lawyer in Paris: settle and fund the duties heirs owe.

The time limit is six months from the date of death where the deceased died in metropolitan France, and one year in other cases (Article 641 of the General Tax Code). It is extended to twenty-four months for a return that includes real estate or real property rights whose ownership by the deceased had not been recorded before the death by a published deed, provided that the notarial certificates relating to those assets are published within that period (Article 641 bis of the General Tax Code). If the return is filed late, late-payment interest applies to the tax and a 10% surcharge is due. For the six- and twenty-four-month periods, it applies only from the first day of the seventh month following the month in which they expire, this deferral not applying to the one-year period; it rises to 40% if the return is not filed within ninety days of a formal notice (Article 1728 of the General Tax Code). A delay incurred on a third party's advice does not protect the heir. The Paris judicial court held that "the penalty for failure or delay in filing a return is by its nature exclusive of any assessment of the taxpayer's good faith" (TJ Paris, 9e ch. 3e sect., 30 January 2025, No. 23/11988) (our translation), and upheld the late-payment interest and the surcharge although the heir relied on the opinion of their notary. In that case, the return had been filed fourteen months after the death. The firm can help you file a complete return within the time limit, even if it is then supplemented on a point that is still uncertain.

Article 800 of the General Tax Code requires a detailed return from heirs, legatees and donees. It exempts direct-line heirs, the surviving spouse and the civil partner (PACS) where the gross estate is below €50,000, provided that they have not previously received from the deceased a gift or manual gift that was not registered or declared. Other heirs are exempt where the gross estate is below €3,000. The threshold is measured on the gross estate, before deduction of debts and funeral costs, which rules out the exemption in many estates that include a home. The exemption from filing is not an exemption from tax: the surviving spouse is exempt from tax under Article 796-0 bis of the General Tax Code, but may still be required to file if the estate exceeds the threshold. An earlier undeclared gift is also enough to lose the exemption. Before giving up on filing, the firm checks the exact composition of the estate at the date of death, the accounts and contracts held in the deceased's name and the history of the gifts made.

Real property is declared at their actual market value at the date of the transfer, on the parties' estimated declaration (Article 761 of the General Tax Code). Where that value appears to them lower than the actual value, the tax authorities may adjust it under the adversarial procedure, by proving the shortfall (Article L. 17 of the Book of Tax Procedures). In practice, they put forward sales of comparable properties in the same area. Heirs who challenge the valuation must also produce relevant comparables. The Paris judicial court disregarded sales concluded after the death, recalling that "the valuation may not rely on comparables drawn from transactions after the date of death" (TJ Paris, 9e ch. 3e sect., 3 October 2024, No. 23/05538) (our translation). It also found that the exclusive use of a garden gave the property a higher value than the references produced, and dismissed the heirs' claims. In that case, only sales of genuinely similar properties concluded before the death counted. Article 761 nonetheless reserves the auction sale of the property itself within the two years before or after the start of the period for filing the return, the price of which sets a floor. Where the home was, at the date of death, the main residence of the deceased and, at the same date, that of the spouse, the partner or a minor child, protected adult or disabled adult child within the meaning of Article 779, of the deceased, the spouse or the partner, Article 764 bis of the General Tax Code provides for a 20% allowance on its actual market value. The firm examines the available references before filing, in order to set a defensible value rather than a convenient figure.

For household furniture, Article 764 of the General Tax Code provides for a taxable value that cannot be less than 5% of all the other assets of the estate, unless proved otherwise. This flat rate gives way to a public sale held within two years of the death, or to an inventory drawn up in the legal form and within five years of the death. The inventory must nonetheless be reliable as a whole. The Paris court of appeal accepted the formal regularity of an inventory, then held that the undervaluation of two statuettes bought by the deceased one month before the death for €22,000, and inventoried at €950, "affects the evidential value of that inventory as a whole" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 10, 23 October 2025, No. 23/03485) (our translation). The court confirmed the application of the flat-rate 5%, and the heirs lost their appeal. It also refused to treat the other valuations in the inventory as proof to the contrary. This decision shows that a single valuable item wrongly valued can bring down the whole document. The firm therefore checks, before filing, that artworks, jewellery and recently acquired items are valued at their actual value, and that the inventory contains the required particulars.

Yes, to the extent that the debt exists at the date the estate opened. Article 768 of the General Tax Code allows deduction of debts owed by the deceased where their existence at that date is evidenced by any means of proof compatible with the written procedure. The outstanding capital and accrued interest are evidenced by the loan agreement, the amortisation schedule and a certificate from the lender. In a case where the tax authorities had refused to deduct a bullet loan on the ground that an action for nullity had been brought after the death, the Court of Cassation set aside the appeal judgment. It noted that at the date of death the writ had not been served and that "the deceased owed the bank the entire borrowed capital, together with interest" (Cass. com., 6 May 2026, No. 25-13.598) (our translation). The date of death therefore governs the assessment, and a later dispute is not enough to make the debt retroactively uncertain. Article 773 of the General Tax Code, on the other hand, excludes several categories of debt, notably those that fell due more than three months earlier without a certificate from the creditor, or those acknowledged by will. The firm checks each debt entered among the liabilities against these exceptions before filing.

In principle, no. Article 773 of the General Tax Code excludes from deduction debts granted by the deceased in favour of their heirs or of intermediaries. It nevertheless reserves to the heirs the right to prove that the debt was genuine and existed at the date of death, where it was recorded by notarial deed or by a private deed with a certain date before the estate opened, otherwise than by the death of a party. The Paris court of appeal applies this formal condition strictly. It holds that "a debt granted by the deceased in favour of an heir is presumed fictitious and cannot be deducted from the estate" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 10, 26 May 2025, No. 20/00631) (our translation), and refused to deduct an unregistered private acknowledgement of debt, despite the proof of payments produced and the good faith the heir relied on. The judgment upholds the decision unfavourable to the taxpayer. Where a parent has been supported financially by a child, or the reverse, the proof should therefore be prepared during the parties' lifetime, by a notarial deed or a registered deed. The firm examines the form of the existing documents and indicates, before filing, whether the debt can be entered among the liabilities with a reasonable chance of being accepted.

Article 751 of the General Tax Code presumes, unless proved otherwise, that an asset of which the deceased held the usufruct and a presumptive heir the bare ownership forms part of the usufructuary's estate. Inheritance tax is then calculated on the full ownership. The presumption is rebutted where the bare ownership derives from a regular gift made more than three months before the death or recorded in a marriage contract, or from a gratuitous split of ownership made within the same period, recorded by notarial deed and valued under the scale in Article 669 of the General Tax Code. The Court of Cassation also applies it to a joint purchase: it holds that "there is no need to distinguish according to whether the split of ownership results from a sale by the deceased to the heir with a reserved usufruct or from a joint acquisition, the deceased taking the usufruct and the heir the bare ownership" (Cass. com., 12 December 1995, No. 94-11.491) (our translation). In that case, the heiress had not established that the acquisition was genuine and her appeal was dismissed. The proof to the contrary relates in practice to the source of the funds paid by the bare owner and to the reality of the transaction. Where the bare ownership had been sold or given by the deceased, the tax already paid by the bare owner is set against the inheritance tax. The firm reconstructs the financing of the acquisition and gathers the statements of the time before discussing the add-back.

Where the gift of bare ownership was made less than three months before the death, outside a marriage contract, it does not benefit from the exception in Article 751 of the General Tax Code, and the asset is presumed to form part of the estate. The presumption remains rebuttable: the heirs may demonstrate that the gift was genuine. The Paris judicial court accepted this proof for a gift signed two months before the death. It found liberal intent from the statements of the notary and the wealth management adviser on a project begun in 2020, then noted, in the light of the medical records and the testimony, that "it emerges from all these elements that, on the day of the gift, nothing suggested that the late [V] could die so suddenly" (TJ Paris, 9e ch. 1re sect., 12 May 2026, No. 24/12502) (our translation). The court ordered the refund of the inheritance tax overpaid. This is a first-instance judgment, given on specific facts, and not a general rule. The demonstration rests on the date the project began, on the state of health known on the day of the deed and on the consistency of the testimony. The firm can gather these elements and prepare the claim where the tax authorities have added the asset back.

On sums of money, the surviving spouse's usufruct is a quasi-usufruct: they may use the money on condition of returning its value at the end of the usufruct (Article 587 of the Civil Code). On a securities portfolio, they must preserve its substance (Article 578 of the Civil Code), and a debt in money arises only if the disappearance of the securities is established. That debt is deductible from the usufructuary's estate only if its existence and amount are evidenced at the date of death (Article 768 of the General Tax Code). For estates opened since 29 December 2023, the date the law was promulgated (Article 26, II, of the Finance Act for 2024), Article 774 bis of the General Tax Code further excludes deduction of restitution debts relating to a sum of money of which the deceased had reserved the usufruct, except for usufructs arising under Articles 757 and 1094-1 of the Civil Code and except for a debt contracted on the sale price of an asset without a mainly tax-driven objective. In a judgment unfavourable to the heirs, the Court of Cassation held that, for a statutory usufruct over a portfolio, "the inheritance tax return alone, identifying and accurately stating the amount of the transferable securities at the date of death, cannot by itself establish the certain nature of the restitution debt" (Cass. com., 27 November 2024, No. 23-12.151) (our translation), and set aside the judgment that had granted them relief. It is therefore necessary to prove what the usufructuary did with the securities, by statements or an agreement with a certain date. Where Article 774 bis applies, the value of the non-deductible debt is taxed in the hands of the bare owner.

A manual gift becomes taxable when it is declared, acknowledged in court or disclosed to the tax authorities (Article 757 of the General Tax Code). The tax is calculated on the value at the date of the declaration or disclosure, or on the value at the date of the gift if it is higher, with the rate and allowances then in force. A reply to a request from the tax authorities is enough. The Court of Cassation held that "the taxpayers' reply amounted to disclosure within the meaning of Articles 635 A and 757 of the General Tax Code" (Cass. com., 4 March 2020, No. 18-11.120) (our translation), and dismissed the taxpayer's appeal. Article 784 of the General Tax Code requires all earlier gifts to be declared. Applying Article 757 as worded before the law of 29 July 2011, the Court held that a manual gift not referred to in a later gift and disclosed only after it did not fall under Article 784, and that "it had to be taxed, under Article 757 of the same Code, on its value at the date of disclosure" (Cass. com., 2 April 2025, No. 23-15.834) (our translation). The taxpayer's appeal was dismissed. For the estate, gifts made less than fifteen years earlier are added to each heir's share for the calculation of the allowances and the scale. The firm lists these gifts with the heirs before filing, in order to avoid a late disclosure in the course of a review.

Yes. Article 1717 of the General Tax Code allows payment of registration duties to be spread or deferred on terms laid down by decree, and Article 396 of Annex III to the General Tax Code makes spread payment applicable to transfers on death. Under Article 404 A of Annex III, payment is made in no more than three equal instalments, at intervals of no more than six months, the last falling no later than one year after the expiry of the filing period. That period is extended to three years and seven instalments where at least half of the estate consists of illiquid assets, such as real estate, a business, shares in companies whose capital is not divided into shares or unlisted transferable securities. Deferred payment is provided for the tax relating to bare ownership (Article 397 of Annex III), and a five-year deferral followed by spreading over ten years for certain business transfers (Article 397 A of Annex III). The request, attached to the return, contains an offer of sufficient security, to be put in place within four months of the accountant's agreement (Article 399 of Annex III). The Versailles judicial court states that "the credit for spread payment of the tax due covers only the principal of the tax, to the exclusion of late-payment penalties" (TJ Versailles, 1re ch., 10 March 2026, No. 23/03129) (our translation). The firm works out the payment schedule before proposing it, so that it remains sustainable until the last instalment.

The taxpayer forfeits the benefit of the credit in the event of failure to provide security, failure to supply the information requested or delay in paying any instalment that has fallen due (Article 403 of Annex III). Forfeiture makes the remaining tax immediately payable, increased by late-payment interest and a penalty. In the case decided by the Versailles judicial court, a legatee had obtained spread payment in 2014, paid nine instalments and then left four unpaid. The tax authorities declared forfeiture and claimed the balance with penalties. The court recalled that the credit covers only the principal of the tax and that "the credit for spread payment of the tax due covers only the principal of the tax, to the exclusion of late-payment penalties" (TJ Versailles, 1re ch., 10 March 2026, No. 23/03129) (our translation). It dismissed the legatee's request for relief from the interest and the surcharge. This unfavourable decision shows that a cash-flow difficulty must be reported before the due date, not after. Where the estate includes works of art, collectors' items or certain real estate, payment in kind (dation en paiement) under Article 1716 bis of the General Tax Code may also be considered, subject to approval, to assets meeting the exhaustive criteria of the text and to at least €10,000 of tax offered in kind for each assessment.

Yes. Article 1709 of the General Tax Code provides that the tax on inheritance returns is paid by the heirs, donees or legatees, and that co-heirs, other than those who are exempt, are jointly and severally liable. The tax authorities may therefore claim the whole of the tax from any one of them. The one who has paid more than their share then has a right of recourse against the others. The Paris judicial court ruled on such a claim after the discovery of a foreign bank account of the deceased, which had led to a tax reassessment, a surcharge for deliberate failure and late-payment interest. It ordered the defaulting co-heir to reimburse their brother for the portion of the tax paid for them. It recalled, however, that "the jointly and severally liable co-debtor has a right of recourse only for what they have paid beyond their share" (TJ Paris, 4e ch. 1re sect., 6 October 2026, No. 25/07160) (our translation), and dismissed the claim relating to the penalties and interest for which overpayment was not established. For heirs, joint and several liability means monitoring payment together and keeping a record of each payment. The firm can organise this allocation from the time of filing, and assist the heir who advanced the tax in their claim.

The discovery of omitted assets leads to a correction of the estate, with late-payment interest and, in the event of deliberate failure, a 40% surcharge provided for by Article 1729 of the General Tax Code. A separate procedure, which does not follow from the death alone, targets the person who has failed to declare, at least once in ten years, an account or contract held abroad, and who does not evidence the origin of the assets within the time limits of Article L. 23 C of the Book of Tax Procedures. Article 755 of the General Tax Code, in force since 1 July 2026, then presumes those assets, unless proved otherwise, to constitute property acquired gratuitously, taxed at the highest rate in Article 777 of the General Tax Code. The Court of Cassation held that a taxpayer had, for the interest on their assets, "rebutted the presumption set out in Article 755 of the General Tax Code by establishing that those sums, the origin and means of acquisition of which were evidenced, did not constitute property acquired gratuitously" (Cass. com., 6 November 2024, No. 23-15.183) (our translation), and set aside the contrary judgment. The reassessment right runs until the end of the third year following registration of a sufficiently revealing return (Article L. 180 of the Book of Tax Procedures), otherwise of the sixth year following the death (Article L. 186 of the Book of Tax Procedures). For tax based on a foreign account that the return does not disclose, it extends to the end of the tenth year following the death (Article L. 181-0 A of the Book of Tax Procedures). The firm examines with the heirs whether a corrective return is advisable and the origin of the funds.