{"id":2110303,"date":"2026-08-27T19:04:57","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T17:04:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/2026\/08\/27\/french-taxe-fonciere-refund-uninhabitable-second-home-british-owner\/"},"modified":"2026-08-27T19:04:57","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T17:04:57","slug":"french-taxe-fonciere-refund-uninhabitable-second-home-british-owner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/27\/french-taxe-fonciere-refund-uninhabitable-second-home-british-owner\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a British Owner Claim a French Taxe Fonci\u00e8re Refund for an Uninhabitable Second Home?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Owning a French second home does not, by itself, make a British owner exempt from French property tax. The taxe fonci\u00e8re<\/em> is the annual French tax charged on built property, and the usual rule is that the owner or usufructuary is assessed for the whole tax year. A house can be empty, damaged or impossible to occupy and still produce a bill. The narrow relief that may apply is a d\u00e9gr\u00e8vement<\/em>, meaning a statutory reduction or repayment of tax. It is not an automatic \u201cuninhabitable property exemption\u201d.<\/p>\n

For a British owner, the decisive issue is therefore not Brexit, nationality or the fact that the house is used only at weekends. The question is whether the property was genuinely intended to be let, whether the vacancy was independent of the owner\u2019s will, whether it lasted at least three months and whether the evidence supports the exact months claimed. This article applies the current French rules to a second home that cannot reasonably be let because of serious damage, a safety order, a disaster or comparable circumstances. It explains what the France\u2013UK tax treaty does and does not do, how the taxe fonci\u00e8re sur les propri\u00e9t\u00e9s b\u00e2ties<\/em> (TFPB, the tax on built property) is calculated, which documents matter, how to claim, and what to do if the French tax authority rejects the application.<\/p>\n

I. Can a British owner claim a French taxe fonci\u00e8re refund for an uninhabitable second home?<\/h2>\n

A. What does French taxe fonci\u00e8re cover after Brexit, and who is liable?<\/h3>\n

The starting point is the property, not the passport of its owner. Article 1380 of the Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts<\/em> (CGI, the French General Tax Code) states that the tax is established annually on built properties located in France, subject to express statutory exemptions. The wording is short but important: Article 1380 CGI<\/a> says, in the official text, \u201cLa taxe fonci\u00e8re est \u00e9tablie annuellement sur les propri\u00e9t\u00e9s b\u00e2ties sises en France\u201d. A British citizen, a British company, a French resident and a non-resident owner are all within the ordinary charging rule when they own a taxable French building.<\/p>\n

The person assessed is normally the owner on 1 January. That follows from Article 1400 CGI, which identifies the owner or holder of the right of ownership for the assessment, and from Article 1415 CGI, which fixes the tax for the entire year by reference to the facts existing on 1 January. The official wording is \u201cpour l\u2019ann\u00e9e enti\u00e8re d\u2019apr\u00e8s les faits existants au 1er janvier\u201d in Article 1415 CGI<\/a>. A sale later in the year may lead to a private adjustment in the sale contract, but it does not normally change the public tax assessment for that year.<\/p>\n

This also explains why a British owner cannot simply stop paying because a property has become dangerous or empty. The annual assessment and the later application for a statutory reduction are separate questions. You may have a strong claim for a reduction for particular months, while still owing the balance of the annual bill. You may also have paid the bill already and seek repayment through a formal claim. The fact that a house is not lived in is evidence; it is not, on its own, a legal result.<\/p>\n

For the separate question of a sale of a French second home and the capital-gains consequences, see our related guide on challenging French capital gains tax as a British owner<\/a>. This article stays focused on the annual property-tax bill and the narrow relief for a qualifying vacancy.<\/p>\n

Brexit does not create a special TFPB exemption. The current France\u2013UK double taxation convention is relevant to cross-border income and gains, but it is not a general override of French local property taxes. Article 6 of the synthesised treaty text confirms that income from immovable property situated in a contracting state may be taxed in that state. The official UK text is available in the France\u2013UK double taxation convention<\/a>. That allocation of taxing rights does not turn the TFPB into UK income tax, and it does not remove the specific conditions imposed by Article 1389 CGI.<\/p>\n

The same distinction matters for other French property charges. The taxe d\u2019habitation sur les r\u00e9sidences secondaires<\/em> is the French residence tax that may remain due on a furnished second home. It is not the same charge as TFPB. A British owner may dispute one bill and still owe the other. Likewise, the taxe d\u2019enl\u00e8vement des ordures m\u00e9nag\u00e8res<\/em> (TEOM, the household-waste collection charge included with the property-tax notice) has its own treatment in the legislation. A successful TFPB argument should identify each line on the notice instead of asking for a vague cancellation of \u201cFrench property tax\u201d.<\/p>\n

There is also a practical difference between an uninhabitable building and a building that is merely unattractive to the market. A leaking roof, unsafe electrical system, flood damage, fire damage, a municipal prohibition on occupation or structural instability may support a claim. A remote location, a disappointing rental yield, a disagreement with an estate agent or a wish to wait for better market conditions usually does not. The tax office will examine the cause of the vacancy and what the owner did in response.<\/p>\n

Finally, the phrase \u201crefund\u201d should be used carefully. The French legal mechanism is a d\u00e9gr\u00e8vement<\/em>. It may reduce the tax charged for qualifying months; if the owner has already paid, the resulting credit or repayment can follow. If the notice includes a separate waste charge, Article 1524 CGI provides a distinct rule for a reduction or discharge in the event of vacancy lasting more than three months, on a claim made under the applicable conditions. Read Article 1524 CGI<\/a> alongside Article 1389 rather than treating every amount on the notice as one indivisible tax.<\/p>\n

B. Does an uninhabitable property meet the legal test for relief?<\/h3>\n

Article 1389 CGI is the central provision. It does not say that every vacant house is exempt. It covers a house \u201cnormalement destin\u00e9e \u00e0 la location\u201d, meaning normally intended for letting, and starts relief from the first day of the month after the vacancy begins until the last day of the month in which the vacancy ends. The statute then imposes three cumulative conditions. The vacancy must be independent of the taxpayer\u2019s will; it must last for at least three months; and it must affect the whole building or a part capable of separate letting or operation. The full statutory text is available in Article 1389 CGI<\/a>, including the requirement that the vacancy be \u201cind\u00e9pendante de la volont\u00e9 du contribuable\u201d and last \u201cune dur\u00e9e de trois mois au moins\u201d.<\/p>\n

Those conditions create the first trap for a British second-home owner. A property used only for the family\u2019s holidays may be uninhabitable in ordinary language but still fall outside the scope of Article 1389 if it was never normally intended to be let. The owner must show a genuine letting intention, not simply say after receiving the bill that letting would have been possible in a different year. Previous tenancy agreements are useful, but a previous tenant is not an absolute requirement. The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat, France\u2019s highest administrative court, held in its decision of 16 March 2016, no. 385771, that Article 1389 does not require the property to have been let previously. The official decision is available at CE, 16 March 2016, no. 385771<\/a>. The owner still needs objective evidence of the intended letting.<\/p>\n

Evidence can include a dated agency mandate, advertisements placed before the damage occurred, correspondence fixing a rent, an inventory prepared for prospective tenants, a draft lease, records of viewings, tax declarations showing rental activity, or a consistent pattern of offering the property throughout the year. If the house was offered only for a few weeks of summer holidays, the file becomes more difficult. A British owner should not describe a purely personal holiday home as a rental property merely because the wording might improve the tax result.<\/p>\n

The second trap is confusing an owner\u2019s financial difficulty with an involuntary vacancy. In CE, 29 January 2007, no. 284113<\/a>, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat examined a property left empty while the owner dealt with a dispute and financial constraints. The reasoning shows why a general statement that renovation was too expensive is not enough: the taxpayer must establish the particular circumstances and steps connected with the vacancy. A British owner who inherited a ruin, bought a property knowing that it was already unlettable, or deliberately postponed work until funds were available may face the argument that the continuation of the vacancy remained a matter of choice.<\/p>\n

That does not mean that the owner must rebuild the house at personal cost before applying. The question is whether the inability to let was independent of the owner\u2019s will and whether the owner acted reasonably. A fire, a flood, a structural movement, a serious infestation, a compulsory safety measure or a third-party insurance dispute may point towards an involuntary vacancy. A voluntary programme of improvements, a decision to keep the house empty while seeking a higher rent, or a failure to respond to repeated repair offers points in the opposite direction.<\/p>\n

French administrative case law is fact-sensitive. In CE, 23 April 1980, no. 15364<\/a>, a municipal demolition measure prevented the property from being let, and the court treated the vacancy as independent of the owner\u2019s will even though the owner had stopped letting it before the order. That kind of official restriction is powerful evidence because it fixes both the cause and the date. A report from the mairie<\/em>, meaning the local town hall, or a formal order from the competent authority can be more persuasive than photographs alone.<\/p>\n

By contrast, a decision to close a property for internal reasons may fail the test. In CE, 23 March 1984, no. 21994<\/a>, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat did not regard a closure decided by the owner\u2019s side of the organisation as independent of the taxpayer\u2019s will. The lesson is not that every private event defeats relief; it is that the file must explain why the owner could not reasonably restore or offer the property for letting.<\/p>\n

The third trap concerns the words \u201cnormally intended to be let\u201d. The court may look at the whole pattern rather than a single advertisement. In CE, 14 April 2008, no. 289978<\/a>, the court accepted that short periods of letting could be consistent with a property normally offered for rent when the property was made available throughout the year. In contrast, CAA Lyon, 31 December 1996, no. 95LY00205<\/a>, treated a studio offered only as a seasonal rental as outside the relevant category on the facts of that case. A second-home owner should therefore preserve evidence of the actual marketing pattern: dates, availability, target tenants, rent terms and the parts of the building that were offered.<\/p>\n

A sale plan is not automatically fatal either. In CE, 5 June 2020, no. 423066<\/a>, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat considered the circumstances and steps taken by the taxpayer and held that putting a property up for sale did not by itself eliminate relief where the property was also genuinely offered for letting. A British owner should not claim that sale and letting are always compatible; the point is to prove the reality of the letting offer, the absence of a sham listing and the reason the property could not be occupied by a tenant.<\/p>\n

Later decisions reinforce the need for individualised proof. In CE, 26 July 2018, no. 404237<\/a>, the court assessed the owner\u2019s circumstances and actions rather than applying a general economic explanation. In CE, 11 May 2021, no. 440045<\/a>, the court required the taxpayer to identify the circumstances and steps for each apartment; a broad reference to insecurity was not enough. If only one flat, wing or separately lettable annex is damaged, the claim must isolate that unit and its own dates. Claiming a reduction for the whole property when only one room was affected can weaken the entire file.<\/p>\n

In practical terms, \u201cuninhabitable\u201d should be translated into a documented legal timeline. Write down the event that made letting impossible, the day it occurred, the first day a tenant could no longer enter safely, the date the owner notified the insurer or local authority, the repair steps, the date the property became fit again and the date it was offered once more. If the cause is a long period of dilapidation that existed before purchase, explain what was known at completion and what action followed. The tax office will often ask whether the owner created, prolonged or could reasonably have ended the vacancy.<\/p>\n

II. How do you prove, calculate and appeal a taxe fonci\u00e8re refund?<\/h2>\n

A. Which evidence proves the three conditions, and how much can be claimed?<\/h3>\n

A strong claim is assembled in four layers. The first identifies the taxpayer and the property. Attach the TFPB notice, the property address, the cadastral references, the owner\u2019s status on 1 January and, where relevant, the purchase deed or estate documentation. If there are several buildings on one notice, identify the exact building or separately lettable part concerned. A British owner living outside France should also provide a reliable correspondence address and explain any change of address that may have affected delivery of the notice.<\/p>\n

The second layer proves the intention to let. Use documents that existed before or at the beginning of the vacancy wherever possible. A letting-agency mandate is useful because it identifies the property and the instruction given. Dated online listings, screenshots preserved with the URL and date, emails from prospective tenants, rent valuations, previous leases, furnished-inventory records and viewing appointments can be combined. An advertisement created only after the tax authority questions the claim carries less weight than a continuous letting history. Explain whether the property was offered for a long-term lease, a furnished lease, a short-term stay or another lawful form of letting, because the marketing pattern affects the \u201cnormally intended\u201d assessment.<\/p>\n

The third layer proves the physical or legal barrier to letting. Depending on the facts, include a municipal safety or prohibition order, a fire-service report, an insurer\u2019s loss report, an engineer\u2019s or surveyor\u2019s report, dated photographs, expert estimates, invoices, contractor correspondence, utility records, water or electricity disconnection evidence, planning documents and correspondence showing why work could not be completed sooner. A report should describe the practical consequence: for example, no safe access, no functioning water system, structural risk, major contamination or an official prohibition. \u201cThe house was in poor condition\u201d is a conclusion; a report explaining why an ordinary tenant could not lawfully or safely occupy it is evidence.<\/p>\n

The fourth layer proves independence from the owner\u2019s will and the duration. Create a short chronology with the event, document, action and result for every material date. If an insurer delayed payment, attach the claim reference and correspondence. If an authority required works, attach the order and completion certificate. If a contractor was unavailable, attach written evidence rather than relying only on a later statement. If the owner chose a particular renovation design, separate that voluntary improvement from the repairs necessary to make the property lettable. The file should answer the obvious question: what could the owner reasonably have done, and what actually happened?<\/p>\n

The statutory timing is precise. Article 1389 measures the relief by months: it starts on the first day of the month after the vacancy begins and ends on the last day of the month in which the vacancy ends. A vacancy beginning on 10 January does not ordinarily produce relief for the first ten days of January under this mechanism. If the property becomes lettable on 15 May, May is generally included because the final month is counted to its last day under the statutory wording, subject to the administration\u2019s assessment of the actual end of the vacancy. Ask for a month-by-month calculation, not a rounded percentage.<\/p>\n

For example, assume the annual TFPB shown on the notice is \u20ac2,400. The property becomes uninhabitable on 10 January 2026 and is genuinely fit and available again on 15 May 2026. If the administration accepts the three-month threshold and the other conditions, the potentially qualifying months are February, March, April and May: four twelfths of \u20ac2,400, or \u20ac800. The result is not a promise that \u20ac800 will be granted; the dates, letting intention and cause still have to be proved. If the property becomes fit during May but remains unavailable for a separate voluntary renovation, the administration may examine the exact end of the qualifying vacancy.<\/p>\n

The three-month condition is cumulative, not an average over several unrelated incidents. A two-month closure after a leak followed by a separate one-month closure a year later should not be presented as one continuous three-month vacancy without a legal and factual basis. Conversely, a single continuing disaster can meet the threshold even if the repair work is carried out in stages. Keep evidence showing continuity: the property\u2019s condition, access restrictions, repair correspondence and renewed letting availability.<\/p>\n

Do not omit the separate-letting requirement. Article 1389 can apply to the whole property or to a part capable of being let separately. That requires a real division, not merely a damaged bedroom in a house that could never have been rented as a stand-alone unit. A self-contained annex, independent flat or separately marketed dwelling may qualify. Describe entrances, facilities, meters, lease terms and the way the unit was offered. If the whole building is affected, state why no tenant could use any part safely.<\/p>\n

The waste charge may need a separate calculation. Article 1524 CGI refers to a vacancy lasting more than three months and allows discharge or reduction on a claim under the relevant conditions. Check the TEOM line on the notice and request the appropriate treatment expressly. A TFPB reduction does not automatically answer every question about TEOM, and a claim that simply says \u201crefund all property tax\u201d may leave an avoidable issue unresolved.<\/p>\n

There is another source of confusion: the rules for taxes aimed at vacant homes are not identical to TFPB. French official guidance distinguishes taxes such as the taxe sur les logements vacants<\/em> (TLV, tax on certain vacant homes) and the taxe d\u2019habitation sur les logements vacants<\/em> (THLV, a local tax on certain vacant homes). Those mechanisms concern qualifying habitable dwellings and their own geographical and factual conditions. A building that is too damaged to fall within a vacant-home tax may still remain liable for TFPB. The official explanation of these separate taxes is available on impots.gouv.fr\u2019s taxes and similar charges page<\/a>. Do not use a TLV or THLV argument as a substitute for the Article 1389 test.<\/p>\n

B. How do you file the claim, protect payment rights and challenge a refusal?<\/h3>\n

The claim should be sent to the French tax service responsible for the property, usually through the secure messaging facility in the owner\u2019s espace particulier<\/em> on impots.gouv.fr or to the Centre des finances publiques<\/em>, the public finance office that handles the property\u2019s tax account. The official guidance on an empty or vacant house confirms that TFPB remains due in principle and explains the Article 1389 route for a qualifying vacancy; see impots.gouv.fr: tax notice for an unoccupied or vacant house<\/a>. A non-resident owner should identify the property\u2019s French tax office rather than sending a generic request to a UK authority.<\/p>\n

Call the document a formal claim, not an informal customer-service query. State the tax year, notice number, property address, cadastral reference, legal basis, first and last date of the vacancy, months claimed, amount requested and the evidence attached. Use a clear subject such as \u201cClaim for TFPB relief under Article 1389 CGI \u2013 [property address] \u2013 [tax year]\u201d. If the notice was already paid, say that you seek a repayment or credit. If only part of the building was uninhabitable, identify the part and explain its separate letting capacity.<\/p>\n

The statutory filing deadline is easy to miss. Article R*196-5 of the Livre des proc\u00e9dures fiscales<\/em> (LPF, the French Tax Procedure Book) provides that Article 1389 claims must be made no later than 31 December of the year following the year in which the vacancy reaches the required minimum duration. The official text says that they \u201cdoivent \u00eatre demand\u00e9s au plus tard le 31 d\u00e9cembre de l\u2019ann\u00e9e suivant\u201d that year. Read the rule at Article R*196-5 LPF<\/a>. If the vacancy reaches three months during 2026, the prudent working deadline is 31 December 2027, subject to the administration\u2019s treatment of the exact qualifying year and any special procedural issue. File earlier: waiting for the repair to finish or for a UK insurer to close its file can consume the legal period.<\/p>\n

Keep proof of submission. Save the secure-message receipt, delivery confirmation, attachments, the original tax notice and a complete copy of the claim. If the French authority asks for more evidence, answer within its stated period and repeat the legal chronology. A later appeal will be easier if the first claim already stated the amount and the legal basis precisely.<\/p>\n

Do not assume that a claim automatically suspends payment. Article L. 277 LPF allows a taxpayer who disputes the basis or amount of an assessment to request a sursis de paiement<\/em>, meaning deferral of the disputed payment, when the claim expressly asks for it and states the amount or bases of the reduction sought. The official wording and safeguards are set out in Article L. 277 LPF<\/a>. If a British owner wants to defer the disputed part, the request should be made in the claim itself. Do not silently refuse payment: the authority may require guarantees and the undisputed part remains due.<\/p>\n

Late payment carries a financial risk. Article 1730 CGI provides for a 10% increase for delay in paying sums due for property taxes, among other listed taxes. The official provision is available at Article 1730 CGI<\/a>. A separate request for relief from a late-payment increase may have a different legal basis and should not be confused with the claim that the underlying TFPB was excessive. If the notice is close to its due date, consider paying the undisputed amount and making the relief request, while expressly addressing any requested deferral for the disputed amount.<\/p>\n

The tax authority\u2019s silence also has a procedural meaning. Under Article R*198-10 LPF, the administration generally has six months to decide a claim, with a possible additional period subject to the information required by the text, and a rejection must be reasoned. See Article R*198-10 LPF<\/a>. A reasoned refusal should be analysed against the three Article 1389 conditions. Typical reasons include \u201cnot normally intended to be let\u201d, a voluntary renovation, insufficient evidence of the start date, a vacancy shorter than three months, lack of proof that the unit could be let separately, or a failure to file on time.<\/p>\n

If the claim is rejected, the next step may be an action before the competent tribunal administratif<\/em>, the administrative court. Article R*199-1 LPF provides the two-month period after notification of the decision and also addresses the situation in which the administration has not decided within the relevant period. Consult the official text at Article R*199-1 LPF<\/a>. The calculation of time depends on how and when the decision was notified, so preserve the envelope, electronic timestamp or secure-message record. A court application should reproduce the original claim, the refusal, the chronology, the calculation and the documents supporting each factual proposition.<\/p>\n

The case law gives useful ways to frame that challenge. If the administration says that the property was never previously rented, rely on CE, 16 March 2016, no. 385771<\/a> for the point that prior letting is not an absolute statutory prerequisite, while accepting that intent must still be proved. If it says that a sale listing ends the claim, analyse CE, 5 June 2020, no. 423066<\/a> and show that the property was genuinely offered for letting. If it relies on a general statement about weak finances, distinguish CE, 29 January 2007, no. 284113<\/a> by providing property-specific evidence of the event, the repair steps and the unavoidable delay.<\/p>\n

Equally, the owner should confront adverse facts instead of hiding them. If the property was offered only seasonally, explain the availability pattern in light of CAA Lyon, 31 December 1996, no. 95LY00205<\/a> and, where appropriate, distinguish it with evidence of year-round availability as in CE, 14 April 2008, no. 289978<\/a>. If a public authority prohibited occupation, use CE, 23 April 1980, no. 15364<\/a> to explain why the vacancy was not voluntary. The legal argument becomes stronger when every case is tied to a dated document rather than cited as a slogan.<\/p>\n

A claim may also need to address the source of the damage. If the owner acquired an already dilapidated building and did not take steps to make it lettable, the administration may argue that the prolonged vacancy was foreseeable or chosen. If an external event occurred after a documented letting project began, the chronology is more favourable. If a tenant caused the damage, provide the lease, inventory, insurance claim and recovery steps. If a co-owner, contractor, neighbour or public authority caused the delay, identify that third party and the requests made to resolve the problem. The question is not simply who caused the physical damage; it is whether the owner\u2019s continued inability to let was independent of the owner\u2019s will.<\/p>\n

British owners should also avoid a treaty detour. A request based on the France\u2013UK convention may be misplaced if the real relief comes from Article 1389 CGI. The treaty can help with the allocation of income from property, pension income or gains, depending on the facts, but it does not replace a French local-tax claim. The cleaner application cites the French statute first, uses the UK treaty only to explain why Brexit does not alter the local-tax analysis, and separately identifies any UK tax consequence of receiving a refund or owning a French property.<\/p>\n

Before sending the application, run a final audit:<\/p>\n