A foreign founder can incorporate a French company, keep the parent company abroad and still create a substantial French tax file. The risk usually appears when the French company pays a parent for services, receives financing, uses intellectual property, buys stock, sells goods, or shares central costs with another group company. These are transfer-pricing transactions: the price must reflect what independent companies would have agreed, and the company must be able to explain the result to the French tax administration.<\/p>\n
This guide separates three obligations that are often confused. Form 2257-SD is an annual declaration for companies meeting the statutory size or group tests. The master file and local file are a more detailed audit documentation package, generally required for a company within the 150-million-euro documentation perimeter. A smaller French subsidiary can still receive a targeted request under the French Tax Procedure Book. The practical answer is therefore not to wait for a threshold: map the group, reconcile every cross-border flow, and preserve the evidence before the first French tax audit.<\/p>\n
The terms used below are French legal terms. The CGI means the French General Tax Code (Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts). The LPF means the French Tax Procedure Book (Livre des proc\u00e9dures fiscales). IS means French corporate income tax (imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s). A Kbis is the official extract proving a commercial company’s registration; it is issued by the commercial court registry, commonly called the greffe. The French business-law service hub<\/a> can be used for the wider incorporation and compliance context, while this article focuses on the cross-border tax evidence and deadlines.<\/p>\n The first question is not whether the founder lives in France. It is whether the French company has foreign related-party transactions and falls within one of the statutory reporting tests. The arm’s-length rule can apply even where the founder, director and parent company are all outside France. The French company remains taxable on the profit attributable to its French business, and the price paid or received on a cross-border group transaction can change that profit.<\/p>\n Article 57 of the CGI is the starting point. It addresses the incorporation into the tax result of «les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices indirectement transf\u00e9r\u00e9s» to a foreign dependent or controlled enterprise. In English, this means that a French company cannot reduce its French taxable base by setting an artificial purchase price, service fee, royalty, interest rate, guarantee fee or sale price with an associated foreign entity. Article 209 of the CGI applies the ordinary rules for determining profits subject to IS and expressly refers to the rules in articles 53 A to 57. The statutory links are important: read article 57 of the CGI<\/a> and article 209 of the CGI<\/a> together rather than treating transfer pricing as an optional group policy.<\/p>\n The relationship test also matters. Article 39, paragraph 12, of the CGI states that «Des liens de d\u00e9pendance sont r\u00e9put\u00e9s exister entre deux entreprises» where one holds a majority of the other or exercises decision-making power in fact, or where both are controlled by the same third company. The relevant provision appears in article 39 of the CGI<\/a>. A French subsidiary controlled by a United States, United Kingdom, Swiss, Singaporean or other foreign parent will normally be examined through that relationship. Formal share ownership is not the only issue: factual control and the economic substance of the transaction must also be documented.<\/p>\n Form 2257-SD is the annual transfer-pricing policy declaration. Under article 223 quinquies B of the CGI<\/a>, the main perimeter covers a French legal entity whose annual turnover excluding tax or gross balance-sheet assets reach at least 50 million euros. The same rule can catch a smaller French subsidiary that directly or indirectly controls an entity meeting that test, is itself more than half-owned by an entity meeting that test, or belongs to a tax-consolidated group containing such an entity. A foreign parent therefore needs to check the size of the relevant group, not only the French subsidiary’s own turnover.<\/p>\n The declaration is electronic. Article 223 quinquies B requires it «dans le d\u00e9lai de six mois qui suit l’\u00e9ch\u00e9ance pr\u00e9vue au 1 de l’article 223». Practically, the reference point is the filing deadline for the French company’s annual results return, not the date chosen by a parent company’s finance team. For a company whose financial year follows the calendar year, the result return is generally filed in the spring and the transfer-pricing declaration is due six months after that deadline. A different financial year, a late filing, a tax-consolidation arrangement or an exceptional filing calendar can change the calculation, so the actual date should be recorded in the French compliance calendar.<\/p>\n The official Form 2257-SD page on impots.gouv.fr<\/a> identifies the form as the declaration relating to transfer-pricing policy and states that it is filed within six months following the results declaration. The form is not a substitute for the underlying file. It asks for a short description of the group, relevant intangible assets, the group’s transfer-pricing policy, the French activity, transactions with associated enterprises and the principal method used. It is a snapshot that should agree with the contracts, invoices, accounts and economic analysis held by the company.<\/p>\n There is also a transaction filter in the form’s practical operation. The aggregate amount for each nature of transaction with associated foreign entities is generally assessed against the 100,000-euro threshold described in the official tax commentary. The threshold is applied by category and by company; it does not authorize a company to omit a material category by netting purchases against sales or by consolidating several French subsidiaries. The current official guidance explains that the form is filed electronically, that it is a lighter version of the audit documentation, and that the threshold is assessed at the level of each company. Keep the calculation that led to the filing or non-filing decision, including zero-transaction and below-threshold categories.<\/p>\n A foreign-owned company should therefore create a one-page eligibility memo each year. It should state the French company’s turnover and gross assets, the identity and size of its direct and ultimate parent, the existence of a tax-consolidated group, each cross-border related-party flow, the amount by category, and the conclusion on Form 2257-SD. This is particularly useful when a new company is still loss-making. Losses do not remove the reporting test, and a small French subsidiary may be caught because its foreign parent or another group company meets the statutory size condition.<\/p>\n Three distinctions prevent most filing errors. First, an ordinary commercial transaction with an unrelated foreign customer is not a transfer-pricing transaction merely because it crosses a border. Second, a transaction with a foreign affiliate remains relevant even where there is no cash payment: a free guarantee, an interest-free loan, a contribution of intellectual property, a cost allocation or an unpriced management function can affect the French result. Third, Form 2257-SD does not validate a price. It reports the method and the amounts; the company must still show why the method and the outcome are arm’s length.<\/p>\n The master file and local file are different from the annual form. Article L. 13 AA of the LPF requires companies within its perimeter to keep documentation available for the French tax administration. The principal threshold is now 150 million euros of annual turnover excluding tax or gross balance-sheet assets for the French entity. The rule also reaches a company that controls, or is controlled by, an entity meeting the threshold, and certain companies belonging to a French tax-consolidated group containing a qualifying entity. The change applies to financial years opened from 1 January 2024.<\/p>\n The wording of article L. 13 AA of the LPF<\/a> is operational: qualifying companies «doivent tenir \u00e0 disposition de l’administration une documentation permettant de justifier la politique de prix de transfert». The obligation is not phrased as a document that can be produced only after the audit starts. The company should maintain a current package capable of being placed at the administration’s disposal when the accounting audit begins.<\/p>\n The package has two legally identified components. The master file describes the multinational group: its legal and operational structure, important profit sources, supply chains, important intra-group service agreements, markets, functions, risks, assets, intellectual-property strategy, financing arrangements and consolidated financial statements where prepared. The local file focuses on the French entity: its management structure, activity, strategy, related-party transactions, amounts by foreign tax jurisdiction, agreements, functional and comparability analyses, pricing method, tested party where relevant, assumptions, adjustments, financial data and the bridge to the annual accounts.<\/p>\n That division is expressed in the statute as «le fichier principal» and «le fichier local». The precise lists in article L. 13 AA should guide the index of the file, especially for a founder who receives a group template from abroad. A group report that describes only the parent company will not normally explain what the French entity actually does, which people perform the functions, who owns the key risks, how the French accounts reconcile to the tested margin, or why a specific French transaction is comparable to the selected independent companies.<\/p>\n The statute also warns that the documentation «ne se substitue pas aux justificatifs aff\u00e9rents \u00e0 chaque transaction». This sentence has practical consequences. A local file cannot replace an executed agreement, a valid invoice, proof of delivery, work product, payment evidence, board approval, customs record, licence register, loan schedule or cost-allocation calculation. If the file says that the French company received strategic services but no one can identify the deliverables, dates, personnel, benefit or accounting entries, the narrative may not carry much weight.<\/p>\n Do not confuse the 150-million-euro documentation perimeter with the 50-million-euro Form 2257-SD perimeter. A group may have an annual declaration obligation without being required to prepare the full statutory master\/local format. Conversely, the relationship rules may bring a smaller French company into the 150-million-euro documentation obligation because its parent or controlled entity meets the threshold. The eligibility memo should test both thresholds separately and should be retained with the yearly tax workpapers.<\/p>\n Special treatment applies to transactions with an ETNC, meaning an \u00c9tat ou territoire non coop\u00e9ratif, or non-cooperative state or territory. Article L. 13 AB of the LPF adds complementary documentation for a company dealing with an associated entity in such a territory. The provision refers to the documents required from companies subject to IS, including the balance sheet and profit-and-loss account of the beneficiary of the transfer. Read the current text of article L. 13 AB of the LPF<\/a> before classifying a country, because the list and legal consequences depend on the current statutory framework.<\/p>\n A separate filing can arise for very large multinational groups. Country-by-Country Reporting, or CbCR, is the country-by-country report of group profits, taxes, activities and entities. Under article 223 quinquies C of the CGI<\/a>, the French reporting company must meet conditions including consolidated accounts, a foreign entity or branch, and consolidated turnover of at least 750 million euros. CbCR is not Form 2257-SD, and neither one replaces the master file or local file. They are related controls in the same international tax calendar, but they answer different questions.<\/p>\n Companies below all of these thresholds should not interpret the absence of a standard file as immunity. During a tax audit, the administration can use article L. 13 B of the LPF<\/a> when it has gathered elements suggesting an indirect transfer of profits. The request can cover the relationship with the foreign company, the method used for industrial, commercial or financial transactions, the facts supporting the method, the activities of the foreign entity and its tax treatment. A growing French subsidiary should build a proportionate file before it becomes a statutory large company or receives such a request.<\/p>\n The best policy is to keep one controlled evidence set and derive the annual declaration from it. The master file, local file, Form 2257-SD, tax return, general ledger and group reporting should not tell contradictory stories about the French entity’s function. If the French company is described as a limited-risk distributor in the local file but bears inventory, credit and market-development risks in its accounts, the inconsistency may become more important than any individual formatting defect.<\/p>\n A foreign founder should design the file around the questions a French tax inspector will actually ask. The first question is usually what the French company does. The second is what each related foreign entity does. The third is why the allocation of profit, cost, risk and assets follows the price charged. The file should answer those questions with contemporaneous records, not only with a retrospective explanation drafted after a notice arrives.<\/p>\n Start with the identity and control file. Keep the current Kbis, the RNE registration evidence, the articles of association, shareholder register, legal-entity chart, ultimate ownership chart, director appointments and significant board decisions. The RNE is the Registre national des entreprises, the National Register of Enterprises operated through the INPI, the National Institute of Industrial Property. The INPI guidance on company documents<\/a> distinguishes the RNE registration certificate from the Kbis issued by the competent greffe. These documents do not prove the price, but they prove who controls whom and help identify the correct legal counterparty, registration number and accounting period.<\/p>\n Next build a transaction ledger. For every foreign group counterparty, record the legal name, country, tax residence, relationship, transaction type, currency, invoice number, date, account code, gross amount, payment date, withholding-tax treatment and the responsible French business owner. Separate goods, resale, services, royalties, software access, financing, guarantees, insurance, shared costs, commissions and asset transfers. The Form 2257-SD uses categories and aggregate amounts; the audit file must be able to move from the category to the individual invoices and then back to the annual accounts.<\/p>\n Document the functions, assets and risks in plain language. Identify who negotiates with customers, who owns inventory, who decides prices, who employs staff, who bears warranty claims, who funds research, who maintains software, who owns customer data, who carries currency exposure and who can decide to exit a market. A foreign parent may approve the budget while the French team performs the operational work. A contract may allocate a risk to the parent while the French company in practice controls and bears it. The functional analysis must record the evidence, not simply repeat the group agreement.<\/p>\n Then choose and explain the pricing method. Depending on the transaction, the file may use a comparable uncontrolled price, a resale-price method, a cost-plus method, a transactional net-margin method or a profit-split method. Define the method in English for the group and in the vocabulary used by the French form. State why it fits the functions, assets and risks, identify the tested party if a one-sided method is used, explain the profit-level indicator, list the comparables, record the search date and database, and explain every screening criterion and adjustment. If the method changed, retain the old analysis and the reason for the change.<\/p>\n For a French distributor, keep the sales population, purchase population, inventory turns, freight allocation, warranty data, customer discounts and operating-margin bridge. For a service centre, preserve time records, staff grades, project descriptions, cost pools, allocation keys and evidence of benefit. For intellectual property, preserve ownership documents, licences, development decisions, registration records and valuation work. For a loan, keep principal movements, maturity, repayment terms, currency, security, borrower credit analysis, interest calculation and evidence of comparable financing. For a guarantee, document the guarantee benefit, fee analysis, exposure and call conditions.<\/p>\n Reconcile the analysis to the French accounts. The French accounting entries file, known as the FEC (fichier des \u00e9critures comptables), should be capable of identifying the accounts and entries used in the analysis. Tie the transaction ledger to the general ledger, the annual accounts, the IS return, VAT returns where relevant, withholding-tax forms and the transfer-pricing declaration. Explain foreign-exchange differences, year-end true-ups, credit notes, provisions, accruals and management recharges. A margin that exists only in a spreadsheet and cannot be reconciled to the books is a weak margin.<\/p>\n Keep the documentary trail for the actual benefit of intra-group services. This does not mean that every group service is automatically non-deductible. It means that the French company should be able to show what it received, when it received it, who performed it, how the allocation key was applied and why an independent company would pay for it. Preserve reports, meeting notes, tickets, deliverables, technical access logs, training records, business plans and emails. Avoid a generic invoice describing only \u201csupport\u201d without a service period, scope, recipient, rate and underlying work.<\/p>\n The recent case law reinforces the need for a reasoned method rather than a mechanical label. In Conseil d’\u00c9tat, 7 May 2026, no. 496874<\/a>, the court held that «la seule circonstance que la m\u00e9thode retenue par une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pour d\u00e9terminer le prix de ses prestations \u00e0 une filiale \u00e9trang\u00e8re» is not, by itself, enough to establish the transfer. The decision continues that the administration must determine the arm’s-length level using relevant parameters. For a company, this means keeping the parameters: functions, market, capacity, contractual scope, cost base, risk and comparable evidence.<\/p>\n In Conseil d’\u00c9tat, 5 July 2023, no. 464928<\/a>, the court examined comparable functions, assets, risks, geographic markets and transaction volumes. Its reasoning refers to «la nature et le co\u00fbt des diff\u00e9rences de fonctions». A foreign founder should read that as a checklist. If the selected comparable performs wholesale and retail functions while the French company performs only wholesale functions, document the difference and the adjustment or explain why the difference does not undermine comparability.<\/p>\n In Conseil d’\u00c9tat, 28 November 2018, no. 410779<\/a>, the court stated that «Il revient ensuite \u00e0 l’administration, qui supporte la charge de la preuve» of the advantage granted by the French company to the related foreign enterprises. The same decision discusses the administration’s ability to request cost and revenue detail by activity or product. A response that provides only a group-level total, without separating related-party and third-party transactions, may leave the inspector unable to test the method and may weaken the company’s position.<\/p>\n These decisions do not mean that a company wins by submitting a thin file. They explain why the file must be sufficiently concrete to make the legal and economic comparison possible. The company should therefore preserve the analysis in a locked annual version, identify the source documents, date the approvals and store the foreign parent material with a French translation or a reliable English-to-French working summary where the tax team requires it. The French administration can ask for documents in the context of its audit; a language issue should not become a reason that the company cannot explain its own transactions.<\/p>\n Finally, keep a short \u201cchanges during the year\u201d memorandum. Record a new parent, acquisition, branch, product, financing, licence, employee function, market, restructuring, supply chain or cost-allocation key. A foreign founder often sees the transaction as an administrative recharge; the French analysis may treat it as a restructuring, transfer of an intangible, financing transaction or change in risk profile. A dated change memo makes the annual declaration and the local file more credible and helps identify a new filing or tax issue before accounts are closed.<\/p>\n The deadline depends on the document requested. Do not apply the ordinary thirty-day rule automatically to every transfer-pricing notice. Article L. 11 of the LPF<\/a> states that, where the LPF does not provide another period, the taxpayer’s response time is thirty days. The text uses the phrase «le d\u00e9lai accord\u00e9 aux contribuables pour r\u00e9pondre aux demandes de renseignements» and then sets the general period at thirty days. A specific transfer-pricing provision can give more time or create a separate formal notice, so the notice and its legal basis must be read first.<\/p>\n For a non-large company receiving a reasoned request under article L. 13 B, the administration must specify the response period. Article L. 13 B says that this period cannot be less than two months and can be extended on a reasoned request, but the total period cannot exceed three months. The company should ask for an extension before the original deadline, explain the documents held abroad, identify what is being translated or reconstructed, and propose a delivery schedule. Silence is not a strategy; an incomplete answer should identify the missing items and the date on which they will follow.<\/p>\n For a company within article L. 13 AA, the master file and local file must be available when the accounting audit is engaged. If they are missing or incomplete, the administration can issue a formal notice to produce or complete them within thirty days, specifying the documents or additions required and the applicable sanctions. The governing wording is in article L. 13 AA of the LPF<\/a>. The thirty-day period is short for a foreign group whose documents are held in another country, which is why the documentation should be assembled during the financial year rather than after receipt of the notice.<\/p>\n The principal documentation penalty is in article 1735 ter of the CGI<\/a>. A failure to answer, or a partial answer, to the formal notice under article L. 13 AA or L. 13 AB can lead, for each audited financial year, to an amount based on the higher of 0.5% of the transactions concerned by the missing documents or 5% of the tax reassessments based on article 57 and related to those transactions. The statute adds: «Le montant de l’amende ne peut \u00eatre inf\u00e9rieur \u00e0 50 000 \u20ac.» The figure is not a substitute for the potential additional corporate tax, interest and penalties; it is an additional exposure for the documentation failure.<\/p>\n There is a separate risk for a late or inaccurate Form 2257-SD. Article 1729 B of the CGI<\/a> provides that «Le d\u00e9faut de production dans les d\u00e9lais prescrits d’un document qui doit \u00eatre remis \u00e0 l’administration fiscale» attracts a 150-euro fine unless a specific rule provides otherwise. The same article provides 15 euros per omission or inaccuracy, subject to a minimum of 60 euros and a maximum of 10,000 euros for documents produced simultaneously, and contains a first-infringement cure rule when the taxpayer repairs the failure within the stated period. The official tax commentary should be checked for the filing year and the form’s exact treatment.<\/p>\n The tax adjustment procedure is also time-sensitive. If the administration sends a proposal to adjust the French result, article L. 57 of the LPF<\/a> requires a proposal «motiv\u00e9e de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 lui permettre de formuler ses observations». The company normally has thirty days to respond under the LPF framework and may request the additional thirty-day period before the initial period expires. The response should challenge the legal basis, the related-party relationship if appropriate, the choice of method, the comparables, the data, the adjustments, the calculation, the year affected and any double-tax consequence. It should attach a coherent evidence bundle, not just a narrative disagreement.<\/p>\n A practical response sequence is as follows. On receipt, preserve the envelope or electronic delivery record and calculate the deadline in the French company’s time zone. On the next working day, identify the notice, its legal basis, the years, transactions, amounts and named foreign entities. Within the first week, freeze the ledger, contracts, invoices, emails and accounting exports so that the evidence is not overwritten. Then build a transaction-to-document matrix: each allegation in one column, the company’s answer in another, and the supporting document, page and calculation in a third. Ask the foreign parent for a signed group chart, agreements, comparable studies, accounts and tax treatment immediately.<\/p>\n For a targeted L. 13 B request, answer the questions in the order asked and preserve the underlying calculations. For a L. 13 AA formal notice, use the notice’s document list as the index of the local file and master file; do not send an unstructured archive. State expressly which requested document is supplied, which is not applicable, which is held by the parent, which is translated and which will follow. A partial answer can be lawful if it is candid and supported by a clear timetable, but a partial answer that does not explain the gap can create a separate penalty risk.<\/p>\n If the inspector relies on a different method, compare methods rather than simply asserting that the group’s method is standard. Explain why the tested party, profit-level indicator, geographic market, year, data set and adjustments produce a reliable range. The 2026 Conseil d’\u00c9tat decision no. 496874<\/a> is useful because it rejects the idea that choosing a method that is not the best available method automatically proves a transfer; it does not relieve the company of showing its relevant parameters. The 2023 decision no. 464928<\/a> shows why functional differences and market conditions must be addressed rather than left implicit.<\/p>\n After the administration responds to the company’s observations, a continuing factual disagreement may sometimes be brought before the appropriate tax commission under article L. 59 of the LPF<\/a>, depending on the nature of the dispute and the statutory conditions. The additional procedural period matters: article R.* 59-1 of the LPF<\/a> states that the taxpayer has thirty days from receipt of the administration’s response to its observations to make the relevant request. This is a procedural remedy, not a reason to postpone the technical transfer-pricing analysis.<\/p>\n Where the adjustment risks taxation in both France and the foreign parent’s country, assess the applicable tax treaty and the mutual-agreement route without waiting for the French collection date. A bilateral advance pricing agreement, called an APP in French (accord pr\u00e9alable en mati\u00e8re de prix de transfert), may also be considered for future transactions. The official impots.gouv.fr guidance<\/a> explains that the administration can examine a proposed policy and that an agreement protects the covered years while it is respected. An APP is prospective and does not automatically cure a historic filing or an unsupported invoice.<\/p>\n A foreign founder should appoint one person in France to own the calendar and one group contact abroad to own the parent documents. Set reminders at year-end, at the results-return deadline, six months after that deadline for Form 2257-SD, and throughout the year for material changes. Keep a version of the local file even when the company is below the formal threshold. The cost of a proportionate annual file is usually easier to control than the cost of rebuilding five years of contracts, data and foreign evidence during a thirty-day formal notice.<\/p>\n For a foreign-owned French company, transfer-pricing compliance is a system rather than a single form. Article 57 of the CGI protects the French tax base against an indirect transfer of profit. Form 2257-SD is an annual declaration for companies within the 50-million-euro or group perimeter, generally filed electronically within six months after the results-return deadline. The master file and local file are the more detailed documentation required within the 150-million-euro perimeter and must be available when the accounting audit begins. A very large group may also have a separate CbCR obligation.<\/p>\n The safest file starts with the legal ownership chart and Kbis, maps every transaction to the accounts, explains functions and risks, selects a defensible method, preserves comparables and reconciles the result to the French books. It then keeps the agreements, invoices, deliverables, payment records, calculations and annual changes. When the administration asks questions, calculate the correct deadline: ordinary requests may use thirty days, an L. 13 B request must allow at least two months, and a L. 13 AA formal notice can require missing documentation within thirty days. Respond with a document matrix and a technical analysis before the period expires.<\/p>\n The recent decisions confirm that the administration must establish the relevant arm’s-length comparison, but they also show why a company needs useful data rather than a generic group statement. A French subsidiary that prepares its evidence during the year can explain its business in the language of both the foreign group and the French tax rules, correct Form 2257-SD before filing, and make an audit response substantially more controlled.<\/p>\n Book a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm.<\/p>\n We can review your French group structure, transfer-pricing evidence and response deadline. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or use our contact form<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A practical legal guide for foreign founders: Form 2257-SD, master and local files, evidence, tax-audit deadlines and French sanctions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16578,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,80313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2114436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. Which French companies must keep transfer-pricing records and file Form 2257-SD?<\/h2>\n
A. Does the 50 million euro threshold trigger Form 2257-SD for a foreign-owned company?<\/h3>\n
B. When are a master file and local file required under French law?<\/h3>\n
II. How should a foreign founder prepare and answer a French tax audit?<\/h2>\n
A. What documents and calculations should be kept before the audit?<\/h3>\n
B. What are the response deadlines, sanctions and remedies?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n