Discovering that a French inheritance-tax bill was too high is particularly stressful for a British family. The money may already have been paid to release a French property, the United Kingdom may have charged inheritance tax on the same value, and the original succession return may have been prepared from incomplete documents. A later sale at a lower price can also expose a valuation problem, although the sale price is not automatically the taxable value at death.<\/p>\n
The French expression droits de succession<\/em> means inheritance tax. A d\u00e9claration de succession<\/em> is the inheritance tax return, and a r\u00e9clamation<\/em> is the formal tax claim asking the administration to correct an assessment or repay an amount collected without legal basis. A British heir can seek restitution, but a refund is not triggered merely by writing to the notaire, meaning the French civil-law notary, or by showing that the property eventually sold for less. The claim must identify the legal or factual error, prove the correct figure and meet the procedural time limit.<\/p>\n This guide focuses on a UK heir who has paid French inheritance tax after Brexit and believes that too much was charged. It covers an overstated French property value, an omitted allowance or deductible liability, a France\u2013UK treaty credit that was not applied, and an amount paid twice. It explains the distinction between a rectified succession return and a contentious tax claim, the evidence that makes a valuation argument credible, the role of HM Revenue & Customs, and the remedy if the French authority refuses. The key is to preserve the payment and filing record while testing each part of the calculation separately.<\/p>\n For the wider framework, see the firm\u2019s guide to French inheritance-tax deadlines, payment and challenges for a British heir<\/a>. This article takes the narrower next question: how to recover money once the tax has already been paid.<\/p>\n A refund analysis begins with the French tax base. Article 750 ter of the Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts<\/em>, or CGI (the French General Tax Code), can subject French-located immovable property to French inheritance tax even where the deceased was not fiscally resident in France. It can also affect wider assets where the heir was fiscally resident in France for at least six of the preceding ten years, with treaty rules then requiring careful coordination. The official text is in the L\u00e9gifrance section containing CGI Article 750 ter<\/a>. Before asking for repayment, the heir should establish why France taxed the asset and which country\u2019s relief mechanism is relevant.<\/p>\n The first possible error is an incorrect valuation of French real property. Article 761 CGI provides: \u00ab Pour la liquidation des droits de mutations \u00e0 titre gratuit, les immeubles, quelle que soit leur nature, sont estim\u00e9s d’apr\u00e8s leur valeur v\u00e9nale r\u00e9elle \u00e0 la date de la transmission, d’apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9claration d\u00e9taill\u00e9e et estimative des parties, sans distraction des charges, sauf, en ce qui concerne celles-ci, ce qui est dit aux articles 767 et suivants. \u00bb The current text is available at L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 761<\/a>. \u201cValue at the date of transmission\u201d means value at death, not automatically the later sale price and not an optimistic figure selected without market evidence.<\/p>\n A later sale can nevertheless be important evidence. In Cass. com., 15 March 2011, no. 10-14.729, the Court of Cassation held that property for inheritance-tax purposes is assessed by its real market value at the date of transmission. The decision states: \u00ab les immeubles, quelle que soit leur nature, sont estim\u00e9s d’apr\u00e8s leur valeur v\u00e9nale r\u00e9elle \u00e0 la date de la transmission \u00bb. The official decision is on L\u00e9gifrance, Cass. com., 15 March 2011, no. 10-14.729<\/a>. The case involved an heir who declared a building at \u20ac1.1 million and later sold it for \u20ac900,000. The later sale did not automatically decide the case, but the Court required the valuation rule to be applied correctly. A British heir should therefore collect evidence that relates to the market at death, not only the eventual completion statement.<\/p>\n Evidence can include comparable sales close to the date of death, estate-agent valuations prepared at that time, planning restrictions, access or flood risks, occupancy rights, a life interest, structural defects, rental constraints and the property\u2019s actual condition. A sale years later may reflect a changed market, renovation or a forced-sale context. A sale shortly after death may be more persuasive, especially if the property was marketed openly and the price was negotiated with an independent buyer. The claim should explain what changed between death and sale and why the later figure nevertheless helps reconstruct the earlier market value.<\/p>\n The second possible error is a missing deduction. The succession return may have omitted a provable liability, a loan balance, funeral costs within the permitted framework, a debt that became certain after filing or another item the tax rules allow. The rules must be checked against the nature and date of the debt. A family cannot create a deductible liability after death merely by signing an agreement between heirs. The source, enforceability and payment evidence matter.<\/p>\n The third error is a missed allowance or an incorrect relationship classification. The tax rate can depend on whether the beneficiary is a child, spouse, sibling, more remote relative or person with no recognised family relationship. A British name, a civil-partnership document, an adoption order, a stepchild relationship or a foreign marriage certificate may have been misunderstood in the original file. The claimant should identify the exact relationship rule and provide civil-status evidence. A general assertion that the family is \u201cclose\u201d does not prove eligibility for a direct-line allowance.<\/p>\n The fourth error concerns previous gifts. CGI Article 784 requires certain earlier gifts to be brought into the calculation for the relevant period, subject to the statutory exclusions. The official provision begins: \u00ab La perception est effectu\u00e9e en ajoutant \u00e0 la valeur des biens compris dans la donation ou la d\u00e9claration de succession celle des biens qui ont fait l’objet de donations ant\u00e9rieures \u00bb The current text is available at L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 784<\/a>. An error can operate in either direction: a previous gift may have been counted when it should have been excluded, or a family may have relied on an outdated record and applied the wrong allowance. The dates and documents should be reconstructed rather than guessed.<\/p>\n The fifth error is a treaty or double-tax problem. Brexit does not by itself make French inheritance tax disappear, and a UK calculation does not automatically settle the French bill. The United Kingdom\u2013France convention on duties on estates can allocate taxing rights by domicile and asset situs and may require relief in the other country. HMRC\u2019s explanation of the France convention is available in its Inheritance Tax Manual<\/a>. HMRC also provides a general route for inheritance-tax double-taxation relief<\/a>. The correct claim may be a UK credit, a French correction, or both in a coordinated sequence. It is not safe to assume that paying one country twice creates an immediate refund from the other.<\/p>\n A sixth error is double payment or payment by the wrong person. CGI Article 1709 states: \u00ab Les droits des d\u00e9clarations des mutations par d\u00e9c\u00e8s sont pay\u00e9s par les h\u00e9ritiers, donataires ou l\u00e9gataires. Les coh\u00e9ritiers, \u00e0 l’exception de ceux exon\u00e9r\u00e9s de droits de mutation par d\u00e9c\u00e8s, sont solidaires. \u00bb The text is available at L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 1709<\/a>. A UK executor may have sent an amount from the estate while a beneficiary separately paid the same demand. The claim must identify every payer, payment date, bank reference and the person legally entitled to receive the repayment. Internal allocation between co-heirs is different from the administration\u2019s record of the tax debtor.<\/p>\n The tax is normally due before the formalities are completed. Article 1701 CGI says: \u00ab Les droits des actes et ceux des mutations par d\u00e9c\u00e8s sont pay\u00e9s avant l’ex\u00e9cution de l’enregistrement, de la publicit\u00e9 fonci\u00e8re ou de la formalit\u00e9 fusionn\u00e9e, aux taux et quotit\u00e9s r\u00e9gl\u00e9s par le pr\u00e9sent code. \u00bb The official provision is on L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 1701<\/a>. Paying first does not prevent a later claim, but the claimant must show what was paid and why the correct amount is lower. A payment made under pressure to complete a property transfer is not, by itself, an admission that the calculation was correct.<\/p>\n A refund is not the same as a reduction in the future. The relevant question is whether a legally chargeable amount was collected in excess. If the only evidence is that the property market fell after death, the claim may fail because Article 761 fixes the reference date. If a contemporaneous valuation shows that the return used a figure that could not reasonably represent the market at death, the claim is stronger. If a treaty credit was available but never considered, the documents must show the tax paid in both countries and the convention analysis that produces the correction.<\/p>\n The formal route is a tax claim to the French administration, not merely a letter to the family notary. Article L. 190 of the Livre des proc\u00e9dures fiscales<\/em>, or LPF (the French Tax Procedure Code), identifies contentious claims for correction of errors in the basis or calculation of tax and for restitution of tax collected without legal basis. It states: \u00ab Les r\u00e9clamations relatives aux imp\u00f4ts, contributions, droits, taxes, redevances, soultes et p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s de toute nature, \u00e9tablis ou recouvr\u00e9s par les agents de l’administration, rel\u00e8vent de la juridiction contentieuse lorsqu’elles tendent \u00e0 obtenir soit la r\u00e9paration d’erreurs commises dans l’assiette ou le calcul des impositions, soit le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice d’un droit r\u00e9sultant d’une disposition l\u00e9gislative ou r\u00e9glementaire. \u00bb The current provision is on L\u00e9gifrance, LPF Article L. 190<\/a>.<\/p>\n The usual time limit for a claim relating to a payment that was not assessed through a tax roll or formal notice is set out in LPF Article R*196-1. The rule provides that such claims are generally due by 31 December of the second year following the year in which the disputed tax was paid. The official wording and the alternative starting points are on L\u00e9gifrance, LPF Article R*196-1<\/a>. The exact classification of succession duties and the correct trigger date should be checked from the payment receipt, the declaration and any notice issued. A claimant who waits for the property sale or for a UK tax review can lose time without realising it.<\/p>\n Where the dispute concerns the real market value of a French building, LPF Article R*190-1 directs the claim to the service connected with the location of the property. The provision says, for valuation claims concerning immovables, that they \u00ab sont adress\u00e9es au service du lieu de situation des biens \u00bb. The full rule is on L\u00e9gifrance, LPF Article R*190-1<\/a>. A British claimant should not send the valuation challenge only to the notary\u2019s office or to an HMRC address. The filing destination and proof of receipt should be documented.<\/p>\n LPF Article R*197-3 sets out the minimum content of a claim and begins: \u00ab Toute r\u00e9clamation doit \u00e0 peine d’irrecevabilit\u00e9 : \u00bb The official text is available at L\u00e9gifrance, LPF Article R*197-3<\/a>. In practical terms, the claim should identify the disputed tax, state the legal and factual grounds, set out the amount sought, be signed by the proper claimant and include the assessment or payment evidence. A claimant outside France may also need to make an election of address in France for procedural correspondence, depending on the claim and the applicable rule.<\/p>\n The inheritance deadline remains relevant to the refund route. CGI Article 641 provides six months from death where the deceased died in metropolitan France and one year in other cases, subject to specific exceptions. It states: \u00ab D’une ann\u00e9e, dans tous les autres cas. \u00bb The official rule is on L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 641<\/a>. A late original return can trigger a different dispute about penalties or assessment, while a later refund claim challenges the amount paid. The two issues should not be mixed in one vague request.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation has stressed the importance of the procedural date. In Cass. com., 10 July 2012, no. 11-19.953, the Court held that the registration of the succession declaration was the starting point for the limitation analysis in the case before it and wrote: \u00ab cette date d’enregistrement constituait le point de d\u00e9part du d\u00e9lai de prescription \u00bb. The official decision is at L\u00e9gifrance, Cass. com., 10 July 2012, no. 11-19.953<\/a>. The precise period for a particular claim must still be calculated from its own legal basis, but the case shows why registration evidence should be kept with the payment evidence.<\/p>\n There is also a warning against assuming that a succession disagreement suspends all obligations. In Cass. com., 17 October 1995, no. 93-19.043, the Court referred to an heir\u2019s \u00ab obligation de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la d\u00e9claration dans les d\u00e9lais l\u00e9gaux \u00bb. The decision is available at L\u00e9gifrance, Cass. com., 17 October 1995, no. 93-19.043<\/a>. A later claim for repayment does not cure a failure to file the original declaration. If the family\u2019s dispute delayed filing, it should be addressed separately from the calculation error.<\/p>\n A UK heir should therefore create a deadline table with at least three dates: the original succession-return deadline, the date of each payment and the final day for the applicable claim. The table should include any later event that might trigger a special rule, such as the date a debt became final, the date HMRC issued a tax decision or the date the administration rejected an earlier request. This is especially important when the death occurred in the UK, the property is in France and the family uses a UK financial year for its own records.<\/p>\n The strongest claim is organised around a reconciliation. Start with the amount declared, the amount assessed or accepted, the amount paid and the amount now said to be correct. Then identify each difference in a separate line: property value, debts, allowance, relationship, prior gift, treaty credit, payment already made or arithmetic error. A single bottom-line figure without a bridge from the original return invites questions and makes it difficult for the administration to decide part of the claim.<\/p>\n For a French property valuation, obtain a report that addresses the date of death. The report should describe the property, its surface area, condition, legal status, location, access, occupation, planning position and comparable transactions. It should explain why the comparison properties are genuinely comparable. If the building was subject to a right of use, a lease, a life interest or a co-ownership restriction, the report should quantify the effect. If the property was uninhabitable or required urgent works, photographs, invoices, insurance reports and planning records can support the conclusion.<\/p>\n The eventual sale file should be included but not treated as conclusive. Keep the marketing instruction, asking-price history, viewings, offers, buyer correspondence, completion statement and evidence of arm\u2019s-length negotiation. If the sale was to a relative, a co-heir or a connected company, the administration may give it less weight. If the property was sold under a forced timetable to fund taxes or debts, the price may not reflect ordinary market conditions. An expert should explain whether the sale price is evidence of market value, a forced-sale price or simply a later economic result.<\/p>\n Cass. com., 28 January 1992, no. 90-11.459 illustrates the evidential burden. The heirs sought restitution after alleging that they had omitted a debt attached to SCI<\/a> shares and had valued land as though it were buildable. The Court\u2019s official decision is on L\u00e9gifrance, Cass. com., 28 January 1992, no. 90-11.459<\/a>. The case is a useful warning: a claimant who says the tax was paid by mistake must prove the basis and amount of the alleged overpayment. The family should therefore provide the debt contract, outstanding balance, planning evidence, title documents and an independent calculation rather than relying on hindsight.<\/p>\n For an omitted allowance or relationship rule, the evidence should be civil-status evidence, not only family correspondence. A UK birth certificate, marriage certificate, adoption order, death certificate, grant of probate or court order may require a certified French translation and, depending on the document, apostille or other authentication. The file should explain the legal relationship in plain English and identify the French provision relied upon. Where a foreign document has several versions or changed names, include a short chronology to prevent an administrative mismatch.<\/p>\n For an omitted liability, prove four points: that the debt existed at death, that it was legally enforceable, that it was sufficiently certain under the applicable succession rule and that it was not already deducted elsewhere. A later invoice alone may not be enough. Include the contract, statement of account, correspondence, court order if any, payment trail and the notary\u2019s treatment of the liability. If the debt was contested, show how and when the dispute ended. This level of detail can distinguish a genuine correction from an attempt to rewrite the estate after seeing the final tax amount.<\/p>\n For a treaty or double-tax claim, prepare both countries\u2019 records. The French side may require the original succession declaration, payment receipts, property and bank schedules, the French tax computation and any certificate or correspondence about the treaty. The UK side may require the inheritance-tax account, the schedule of assets, the tax paid or due, the deceased\u2019s domicile evidence and HMRC\u2019s calculation of credit. The two computations should use the same asset descriptions and dates. A difference in exchange-rate date or valuation can create an apparent double payment that is actually a reconciliation error.<\/p>\n Do not confuse a French refund claim with a claim for reimbursement from the estate. If the French administration refunds tax to the heir who paid it, the beneficiaries may still have to account to the estate or to co-heirs under the will and the succession agreement. If the notary paid the tax from estate funds, the refund may need to be returned to the estate account. The claim should state the payment route and the requested recipient. This avoids a second dispute after the tax authority accepts the correction.<\/p>\n LPF Article L. 208 governs the consequences of a successful correction. It states that where the State is ordered to grant relief or the administration grants relief after a claim correcting an error in the basis or calculation, amounts already collected are repaid with moratory interest, and that \u00ab Les int\u00e9r\u00eats courent du jour du paiement. Ils ne sont pas capitalis\u00e9s. \u00bb The official provision is on L\u00e9gifrance, LPF Article L. 208<\/a>. The interest issue should be calculated separately from the principal refund, and the claimant should check whether the legal conditions for moratory interest are met.<\/p>\n The original payment may have included late interest or a surcharge. CGI Article 1727 provides: \u00ab I. \u2013 Toute cr\u00e9ance de nature fiscale qui n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 acquitt\u00e9e dans le d\u00e9lai l\u00e9gal donne lieu au versement d’un int\u00e9r\u00eat de retard. \u00bb The official text is at L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 1727<\/a>. CGI Article 1728 addresses surcharges for late or missing declarations; its current text is on L\u00e9gifrance, CGI Article 1728<\/a>. If the principal tax is reduced, ask for an itemised recalculation of associated interest and penalties. A refund of principal does not automatically mean every charge is treated identically.<\/p>\n The notaire\u2019s role should be documented. In Cass. civ. 1, 8 December 2009, nos. 08-16.495 and 08-17.406, the Court stated that \u00ab le notaire est tenu d’\u00e9clairer les parties et d’appeler leur attention sur la port\u00e9e, les effets et les risques des actes auxquels il pr\u00eate son concours \u00bb. The official decision is at L\u00e9gifrance, Cass. civ. 1, 8 December 2009, nos. 08-16.495 and 08-17.406<\/a>. This does not make the notary the tax authority or guarantee a refund. It does mean that the advice given about the declaration, valuation, treaty evidence and payment should be preserved and compared with the documents actually filed.<\/p>\n The following evidence bundle is usually useful for a British beneficiary:<\/p>\n All foreign-language documents should be indexed. Give each document a number, date, description and relevance. If a number or name differs between the UK probate file and French documents, explain the difference. A clear index helps the service assess the claim without asking a British family to resend a complete estate file every time one document is unclear.<\/p>\n A refusal should be read at three levels: the legal basis, the factual finding and the procedure. The authority may say that the claim was late, that the wrong service received it, that the property evidence does not prove value at death, that a deduction is not legally allowed, that the treaty credit belongs in the United Kingdom, or that the claimant is not the person entitled to repayment. Each reason requires a different response. A general statement that the decision is unfair will rarely correct the relevant defect.<\/p>\n LPF Article R*198-10 requires the administration to decide claims within six months, with a possible additional period in the conditions stated by the text, and provides that a total or partial rejection must be reasoned. The official section containing that rule is on L\u00e9gifrance, LPF rules on the administrative claim procedure<\/a>. Keep the date of receipt and the date of the decision. If no answer arrives, obtain advice on the procedural consequences rather than treating silence as approval.<\/p>\n LPF Article L. 190 confirms that a claim seeking correction of an assessment or restitution of an undue payment falls within the contentious tax route. That means the claimant should formulate the legal grounds and relief precisely from the beginning. The request might ask for a reduction of the taxable property value, the application of an allowance, recognition of a debt, correction of treaty relief, repayment of a duplicate payment and the related interest. The calculations should identify alternative outcomes where one point is accepted and another is rejected.<\/p>\n If the dispute is about property value, the location rule in LPF Article R*190-1 matters. Send the claim to the service connected with the French property and retain proof of receipt. If the estate has several French properties or the tax was administered by a different office, explain why the chosen service has jurisdiction and copy the relevant office if the administration instructs the claimant to do so. A UK address does not change the location of the immovable property for this purpose.<\/p>\n If the claim is rejected as out of time, calculate the deadline from the actual payment, assessment or event rather than from the date of the refusal. The 2019 Court of Cassation decision, Cass. com., 7 May 2019, no. 17-24.595, records a claim being \u00ab irrecevable comme forclose \u00bb, meaning inadmissible because it was time-barred. The official decision is available at L\u00e9gifrance, Cass. com., 7 May 2019, no. 17-24.595<\/a>. The case does not supply a universal deadline for every succession claim; it demonstrates why the claimant must prove timely filing and identify the rule that applies.<\/p>\n If the administration says that the lower sale price is irrelevant, answer the valuation point rather than arguing only from the final price. Article 761 CGI looks to real market value at transmission. The 2011 decision cited above confirms that principle. Explain the evidence available at death, why the original figure was wrong and why the later sale helps test that figure. If the original declaration deliberately used a conservative value and the sale was years later in a different market, the refund case may be weak. A professional valuation should acknowledge adverse facts as well as favourable ones.<\/p>\n If the issue is a treaty credit, do not ask both countries to refund the same tax without a coordinated calculation. The France\u2013UK convention may assign an asset to one country for primary taxing rights while the other grants relief. HMRC may require a formal claim supported by the French assessment and receipt. France may require proof of the UK tax and the treaty article relied on. Send each administration the part of the calculation relevant to its jurisdiction, while keeping one master schedule that prevents the same amount from being claimed twice.<\/p>\n If the administration accepts an error, ask for a formal decision or statement showing the revised principal, interest, penalties and recipient. The refund should be checked against the claim. If the amount is short, write promptly identifying the remaining difference. If the authority refuses only part of the claim, the accepted part should not be allowed to obscure the deadline for challenging the balance. Bank details should be given through the secure route requested by the administration, not in an unverified reply to a suspicious email.<\/p>\n A legal challenge may become necessary after the administrative claim. The competent court, filing period and representation rules depend on the nature of the succession duty and the decision challenged. A UK heir should obtain the written rejection, the original claim, the filing proof, the payment history and the evidence bundle before deciding whether to litigate. The claim can also involve a civil dispute with the notary, an estate accounting issue or a UK tax-credit issue; those claims may have different courts and limitation periods. One letter should not be assumed to preserve every possible remedy.<\/p>\n The documentation of advice can matter in parallel. The 2009 notary decision does not turn every tax overpayment into a professional-negligence claim. It does, however, provide a framework for asking what information was given about the scope, effects and risks of the act. If the family asked specifically about valuation, treaty relief or a refund route and received no warning about a decisive issue, keep the emails, appointment notes, draft returns and signed instructions. Any professional claim requires its own proof of breach, causation and loss.<\/p>\n Finally, do not allow a refund claim to create a fresh late-payment problem. If the original amount remains legally due while the claim is under review, the claim does not necessarily suspend collection. If the family has withheld an undisputed balance, seek advice on the payment position and any available protective procedure. If a tax payment was made under an approved fractioning plan, the instalment schedule remains relevant until the administration confirms the revised account. A challenge to the calculation and a request to stop collection are separate steps.<\/p>\n For a British beneficiary, the practical sequence is clear: secure the French and UK tax files; reconstruct the calculation; test the value at death rather than relying only on the sale; identify the exact French rule or treaty provision; calculate the procedural deadline; file a signed claim with proof; and track the administration\u2019s response. If the claim is refused, answer the stated reason and preserve the court deadline. A well-supported partial claim is often more effective than an expansive request that does not distinguish valuation, allowances, treaty relief and duplicate payment.<\/p>\n A UK heir may recover overpaid French inheritance tax after Brexit, but the refund depends on proving a specific error or legal entitlement. An inherited French property is valued at its real market value at the date of transmission, so a later sale below the declared figure is evidence to analyse, not an automatic refund trigger. Other viable grounds can include an omitted deductible liability, a wrong allowance or relationship classification, an incorrectly applied previous-gift rule, a treaty credit that was not recognised, or a duplicate payment.<\/p>\n The claim should be filed as a formal French tax claim with the correct service, within the applicable period, and supported by the return, payment records, valuation evidence and a reconciliation. Keep the United Kingdom calculation alongside the French one, because double-tax relief is a coordination exercise rather than a reason to seek two full refunds. If the authority rejects the claim, the written reason, the filing dates and the valuation or treaty evidence will determine the next step.<\/p>\n Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm about a French inheritance-tax refund, valuation dispute or France\u2013UK treaty claim.<\/p>\n We can review the payment record, the deadline and the evidence before you submit or challenge a restitution claim.<\/p>\n Call Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen on +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a>.<\/p>\nI. When can a UK heir claim a refund of French inheritance tax after Brexit?<\/h2>\n
A. Which tax errors can produce a restitution claim?<\/h3>\n
B. What deadline and legal route apply to the claim?<\/h3>\n
II. How can a British beneficiary prove and pursue the French inheritance-tax refund?<\/h2>\n
A. What evidence should accompany a valuation, allowance or treaty claim?<\/h3>\n
\n
B. What happens if the French authority refuses the repayment?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case?<\/h2>\n