You live in London, New York or Dubai and you own a French subsidiary, usually a SAS, the simplified joint-stock company that foreign founders favour for its flexibility. Every quarter, your foreign parent company sends an invoice to Paris: twenty or fifty thousand euros for group management, strategy, finance, IT support, human resources, the time your own team spends steering the French business. Your French accountant books the invoice as a deductible charge, the subsidiary pays it by wire, and everyone moves on. Then, two or three years later, a French tax auditor arrives, examines those invoices, and tells you the fees correspond to no real service, or to a service worth far less than what was paid. The deduction is rejected, the corporate income tax of your subsidiary jumps, a withholding tax appears on the same sums, and penalties follow. This scenario destroys more cross-border structures than any other single adjustment in France. It sits at the meeting point of three feared mechanisms: the general denial of deduction for charges that do not serve the company, the transfer-pricing rules for transactions with a foreign related party, and the withholding tax on service fees paid abroad. This article explains, for a foreign founder or foreign parent company doing business in France, how to make those management fees deductible, what proof the auditor will demand, what happens when the money crosses the border, and how you challenge a reassessment from abroad without worsening your position. The French Tax Code is the CGI, the Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts. The official tax commentary of the French tax administration is the BOFiP, published on bofip.impots.gouv.fr. The administrative courts that hear tax disputes are the tribunaux administratifs at first instance, the cours administratives d’appel on appeal, and the Conseil d’Etat at the top.<\/p>\n
A French subsidiary may deduct management fees paid to its foreign parent only if two cumulative conditions are met: the subsidiary must show that it actually received services that serve its own business, and it must show that the price paid matches what independent companies would have agreed. Fail the first test and the charge is thrown out as contrary to sound management. Fail the second and the excess is treated as profit silently shifted abroad. Both tests are documentary: the auditor decides on the file you present, and the file must already exist when the audit starts.<\/p>\n
The starting point is the general deduction rule. Article 39 of the CGI<\/a> provides that “Le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice net est \u00e9tabli sous d\u00e9duction de toutes charges”, which means net profit is computed after deducting all charges. That opening sounds generous, but the same article immediately restricts deductions for payments to people connected with the company: “les r\u00e9mun\u00e9rations ne sont admises en d\u00e9duction des r\u00e9sultats que dans la mesure o\u00f9 elles correspondent \u00e0 un travail effectif et ne sont pas excessives eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 l’importance du service rendu”, meaning remuneration is deductible only to the extent it corresponds to work actually performed and is not excessive having regard to the importance of the service rendered. Management fees paid to a foreign parent fall squarely under this logic: the auditor asks what work was actually done for the French subsidiary, and whether the amount bears any reasonable relation to that work.<\/p>\n Behind this text stands the judge-made doctrine of the abnormal management decision, known in French as the acte anormal de gestion. The Conseil d’Etat restated the doctrine in a decision of 12 March 2025 concerning a property-dealing company that had borrowed from a related party at a rate far above the market. The court recalled that “le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice imposable \u00e0 l’imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s est celui qui provient des op\u00e9rations de toute nature faites par l’entreprise, \u00e0 l’exception de celles qui, en raison de leur objet ou de leurs modalit\u00e9s, sont \u00e9trang\u00e8res \u00e0 une gestion normale”, which means taxable profit comes from all operations of the business except those which, by their purpose or their terms, fall outside normal management. It added the famous definition: “Constitue un acte anormal de gestion l’acte par lequel une entreprise d\u00e9cide de s’appauvrir \u00e0 des fins \u00e9trang\u00e8res \u00e0 son int\u00e9r\u00eat”, meaning an abnormal management decision is one by which a company chooses to impoverish itself for purposes foreign to its own interest. The court also fixed the burden of proof: “Il appartient, en principe, \u00e0 l’administration fiscale, qui n’a pas \u00e0 se prononcer sur l’opportunit\u00e9 des choix de gestion op\u00e9r\u00e9s par une entreprise, d’\u00e9tablir les faits sur lesquels elle se fonde pour invoquer ce caract\u00e8re anormal”, meaning it is in principle for the tax administration, which has no business second-guessing management choices, to establish the facts on which it relies to claim abnormality. Read the full decision of the Conseil d’Etat, 12 March 2025, No. 474279, Malakoff Paris 16<\/a>: the court annulled the appeal judgment on the interest-deduction point and sent the case back, precisely because the lower court had not checked the lender’s market practice before calling the rate excessive. For a foreign owner, the lesson is direct: the auditor cannot simply declare your management fee excessive because it looks high from Paris; it must point to facts, and your best defence is a file that leaves no factual gap.<\/p>\n What does a convincing file contain? First, a written intra-group services agreement signed before the services start, describing each category of service, how the price is computed, and how costs are allocated among group companies. Second, evidence that the services were actually delivered: mission reports, board packs prepared for the subsidiary, email traffic between the parent team and the French staff, travel records of parent executives coming to France, IT tickets and system logs for technical support. Third, evidence that the French subsidiary needed and used those services: decisions of the subsidiary’s president or board referring to the parent’s work, improvements in the subsidiary’s sales or organisation traceable to that work, testimony from the French team that the support was real. Fourth, a pricing memo explaining the method: hours spent multiplied by cost-based hourly rates plus a modest margin, or a flat fee derived from comparable market prices, with the calculation attached. The fees that auditors strike down share the same defects: no contract, invoices described in one vague line such as “management services Q3”, amounts perfectly round every quarter regardless of activity, services the subsidiary could never use because it has no corresponding business, or so-called shareholder services that benefit the parent as owner rather than the subsidiary as a client, like group consolidation, the parent’s own listing costs or the supervision of the parent’s investment. Strip those out of the invoice before the auditor does: bill only what the French company consumed, describe it precisely, and keep the time records.<\/p>\n One neighbouring trap deserves a warning. When the French subsidiary also pays interest to its foreign parent on a shareholder loan, a separate cap applies. Article 212 of the CGI<\/a> states that “Les int\u00e9r\u00eats aff\u00e9rents aux sommes laiss\u00e9es ou mises \u00e0 disposition d’une entreprise par une entreprise qui est son associ\u00e9e ou par une entreprise li\u00e9e, directement ou indirectement, au sens du 12 de l’article 39, sont d\u00e9ductibles”, meaning interest on sums left or made available to a company by a shareholder or related company is deductible, but only within the limits that follow, by reference to a statutory rate or the rate the borrower could have obtained from an independent bank. If your group finances the French subsidiary both with management services and with cash advances, document the two flows separately: a service fee inflated to hide interest, or interest dressed up as fees, will be reclassified, and each regime will then bite in turn. Our step-by-step guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder, from bank account to Kbis, VAT and first hire<\/a> explains how these financing choices fit into the broader launch sequence.<\/p>\n Once the service is shown to be real, the auditor applies the second test: was the price the price of the market? Between a French subsidiary and its foreign parent, the answer is governed by the transfer-pricing provision. Article 57 of the CGI<\/a> provides that “les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices indirectement transf\u00e9r\u00e9s \u00e0 ces derni\u00e8res, soit par voie de majoration ou de diminution des prix d’achat ou de vente, soit par tout autre moyen, sont incorpor\u00e9s aux r\u00e9sultats accus\u00e9s par les comptabilit\u00e9s”, meaning profits indirectly transferred to foreign related companies, whether by increasing or reducing purchase or sale prices or by any other means, are added back to the profits shown in the accounts. A management fee above the market price is exactly such an indirect transfer: the excess is pulled back into the French taxable base, even though the invoice was paid and booked.<\/p>\n The Conseil d’Etat spelled out how this mechanism works in practice in its landmark ST Dupont decision of 5 July 2023, a case about licence royalties and service flows between a French company and its foreign affiliates. The court held that “lorsqu’elle constate que les prix factur\u00e9s par une entreprise \u00e9tablie en France \u00e0 une entreprise \u00e9trang\u00e8re qui lui est li\u00e9e – ou ceux qui lui sont factur\u00e9s par cette entreprise \u00e9trang\u00e8re -, sont inf\u00e9rieurs – ou sup\u00e9rieurs – \u00e0 ceux pratiqu\u00e9s par des entreprises similaires exploit\u00e9es normalement, c’est-\u00e0-dire d\u00e9pourvues de liens de d\u00e9pendance, l’administration doit \u00eatre regard\u00e9e comme \u00e9tablissant l’existence d’un avantage qu’elle est en droit de r\u00e9int\u00e9grer dans les r\u00e9sultats de l’entreprise fran\u00e7aise, sauf pour celle-ci \u00e0 justifier que cet avantage a eu pour elle des contreparties au moins \u00e9quivalentes”, meaning that when the administration finds that prices charged by or to a French company dealing with a related foreign company are lower or higher than those of similar companies operating normally, that is, without any relationship of dependence, it is regarded as establishing an advantage that it may add back to the French company’s results, unless the company shows that the advantage brought it at least equivalent consideration in return. Read the Conseil d’Etat, 5 July 2023, No. 464928, ST Dupont<\/a>: the company’s appeal was rejected in full, “Le pourvoi de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 ST Dupont est rejet\u00e9”, after the court found that persistent losses in France alongside steady profits in the affiliate, combined with prices departing from comparables, proved the transfer. Two practical consequences follow for your fee file. First, the auditor does not have to prove your intention to shift profit; a gap with comparable market prices creates a presumption, and the burden moves to you. Second, your only escape is equivalent consideration: show what the subsidiary received in return for the price, with comparables of your own, cost-plus calculations, or evidence that the fee bought functions, assets and risk-taking that an independent provider would have charged at least as much for.<\/p>\n The third pillar of your defence is documentation, and here the procedure is unforgiving. Article 57 of the CGI<\/a> itself warns that “En cas de d\u00e9faut de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 la demande faite en application de l’article L. 13 B du livre des proc\u00e9dures fiscales ou en cas d’absence de production ou de production partielle de la documentation mentionn\u00e9e au III de l’article L. 13 AA et \u00e0 l’article L. 13 AB du m\u00eame livre, les bases d’imposition concern\u00e9es par la demande sont \u00e9valu\u00e9es par l’administration \u00e0 partir des \u00e9l\u00e9ments dont elle dispose et en suivant la proc\u00e9dure contradictoire d\u00e9finie aux articles L. 57 \u00e0 L. 61 du m\u00eame livre”, meaning that if you fail to answer a request under Article L. 13 B of the Tax Procedure Book, or fail to produce the transfer-pricing documentation, the administration assesses the tax base from whatever material it has, following the adversarial procedure. In the ST Dupont case, the Conseil d’Etat quoted the full L. 13 B procedure: the administration must already hold material suggesting an indirect transfer, it may then request details of the relationship, the pricing method with supporting material, the functions performed abroad and the foreign tax treatment, and “Lorsque l’entreprise a r\u00e9pondu de fa\u00e7on insuffisante, l’administration lui adresse une mise en demeure d’avoir \u00e0 compl\u00e9ter sa r\u00e9ponse dans un d\u00e9lai de trente jours en pr\u00e9cisant les compl\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse qu’elle souhaite”, meaning that when the reply is insufficient, the administration serves a formal demand to complete it within thirty days, specifying what is missing and recalling the penalties, as restated by the Conseil d’Etat, 5 July 2023, No. 464928, ST Dupont<\/a>. The official commentary, BOI-BIC-BASE-80 on the BOFiP<\/a>, details the expected documentation, built around a master file describing the group and a local file describing the French company’s transactions, methods and comparables. Even below the thresholds that trigger the heaviest files, every company facing an audit can receive an L. 13 B request and must answer with method and proof. Prepare that file when the fee policy is designed, not when the auditor’s letter arrives: a benchmarking study commissioned during the audit always looks defensive, while a study dated from the year of the transaction reads as management.<\/p>\n Concretely, choose one recognised pricing method and apply it consistently. For routine support services, the cost-plus method usually fits best: aggregate the parent’s cost base for the service team, add a margin observed on comparable independent providers, and allocate to France by a key that reflects use, such as headcount, turnover or time spent. For services with an observable market price, such as standard IT hosting or payroll processing, the comparable uncontrolled price method works: attach third-party quotes for the same service. Avoid the two classic mistakes. The first is the flat percentage of turnover with no link to cost or use: auditors treat a fee of three percent of sales, identical in a loss year and a record year, as a profit skim. The second is the margin piled on external costs passed through without value added: if the parent merely relays an outside consultant’s invoice, the subsidiary should pay the consultant’s price, not that price plus a group mark-up, unless the parent shows the extra coordination it performed. Update the study every year or two, keep it in English with a French summary if your team works in English, and make sure the transfer-pricing memo, the service agreement and the invoices tell the same story with the same numbers.<\/p>\n Deductibility is only half the battle. The fee must physically travel from the French subsidiary to the foreign parent, and every cross-border payment in France passes two filters: the withholding tax collected at source on the French side, and the special regime for payments to low-tax jurisdictions. Then, if the auditor still adjusts, you must fight the reassessment through a procedure designed for domestic taxpayers, operated in French, on short deadlines, while you live abroad. Both stages reward preparation and punish improvisation.<\/p>\n When a French company pays service fees to a foreign company with no permanent establishment in France, France levies a withholding tax, called the retenue \u00e0 la source, directly on the gross payment. Article 182 B of the CGI<\/a> states that “Donnent lieu \u00e0 l’application d’une retenue \u00e0 la source lorsqu’ils sont pay\u00e9s par un d\u00e9biteur qui exerce une activit\u00e9 en France \u00e0 des personnes ou des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, relevant de l’imp\u00f4t sur le revenu ou de l’imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, qui n’ont pas dans ce pays d’installation professionnelle permanente”, meaning payments give rise to withholding when paid by a debtor carrying on business in France to persons or companies liable to income or corporate tax that have no permanent professional establishment in France. The provision then lists the targeted income, including “Les sommes pay\u00e9es en r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration des prestations de toute nature fournies ou utilis\u00e9es en France”, meaning sums paid for services of any kind supplied or used in France. Your parent’s management services, performed partly from London or New York but used by the French subsidiary in Paris, Lyon or Bordeaux, fall within this net whenever the use is in France.<\/p>\n The decisive question is therefore where the service is used, and the courts answer it by looking at effective use, not at where the invoice was typed. In a 2018 case, a French company operating websites had paid a Cambodian provider for maintenance and development, and argued the services were neither supplied nor used in France. The Paris appeal court rejected the claim, recalling the administrative doctrine that only “les r\u00e9mun\u00e9rations aff\u00e9rentes aux prestations mat\u00e9riellement fournies et utilis\u00e9es hors de France ne sont pas soumises \u00e0 la retenue \u00e0 la source”, meaning only fees for services materially supplied and used outside France escape withholding, and holding that the company proved nothing about use abroad “alors m\u00eame que les sites sont h\u00e9berg\u00e9s en France par une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise”, meaning even though the websites were hosted in France by a French company. The court stressed that the doctrine “ne fait que souligner la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de rechercher le lieu de l’utilisation effective de la prestation pour l’application des dispositions de l’article 182 B”, meaning it merely underlines the need to find the place of effective use of the service. The outcome was blunt: “La requ\u00eate de la SARL Ronde et Jolie est rejet\u00e9e”, the company’s claim was dismissed. Read the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, 8 June 2018, No. 17PA02568, Ronde et Jolie<\/a>. For your management fees, the consequence is that withholding almost always applies at first glance, because the whole point of the fee is that Paris uses the parent’s work. The applicable rate is the statutory rate in force for the year of payment, applied to the gross amount; the applicable tax treaty between France and the parent’s state may reduce or eliminate it for certain business profits, but treaty relief is never automatic. Claim it properly: obtain a certificate of tax residence of the parent, check the treaty’s business-profits and other-income articles, file the treaty forms through the French paying agent, and if withholding was over-levied, file a refund claim with proof of residence and beneficial ownership rather than simply stopping payment.<\/p>\n Before wiring, run a second check that many founders discover too late: where is the parent taxed? If the parent company sits in a state with a privileged tax regime, French law reverses the burden of proof on deduction. Article 238 A of the CGI<\/a> provides that service fees and royalties “pay\u00e9s ou dus par une personne physique ou morale domicili\u00e9e ou \u00e9tablie en France \u00e0 des personnes physiques ou morales qui sont domicili\u00e9es ou \u00e9tablies dans un Etat \u00e9tranger ou un territoire situ\u00e9 hors de France et y sont soumises \u00e0 un r\u00e9gime fiscal privil\u00e9gi\u00e9, ne sont admis comme charges d\u00e9ductibles pour l’\u00e9tablissement de l’imp\u00f4t que si le d\u00e9biteur apporte la preuve que les d\u00e9penses correspondent \u00e0 des op\u00e9rations r\u00e9elles et qu’elles ne pr\u00e9sentent pas un caract\u00e8re anormal ou exag\u00e9r\u00e9”, meaning sums paid by a French-established person to persons established in a foreign state where they benefit from a privileged tax regime are deductible only if the French debtor proves the expenditure relates to genuine transactions and is neither abnormal nor exaggerated. A regime counts as privileged when the foreign tax is substantially lower than the French tax on the same profit. If your holding company is in a low-tax jurisdiction while operating the French subsidiary, expect the auditor to invoke this article first: keep the reality proof even stronger, with local substance of the parent, qualified staff performing the services, and minutes showing the subsidiary’s independent consent to the fee. Note the related rule for shareholders’ current accounts and intra-group interest in Article 39 of the CGI<\/a> and Article 212 of the CGI<\/a>: thin, undocumented funding plus generous fees reads as a single profit-extraction scheme.<\/p>\n Finally, understand what happens to the part of the fee the auditor rejects. The excess does not simply vanish from the accounts: the administration routinely treats it as a deemed distribution to the foreign parent, taxed as a dividend at source. Dividend withholding can in some cases be relieved within the European Union for qualifying parent companies, since Article 119 ter of the CGI<\/a> states that “La retenue \u00e0 la source pr\u00e9vue au 2 de l’article 119 bis n’est pas applicable aux dividendes distribu\u00e9s \u00e0 une personne morale qui remplit les conditions \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es au 2 du pr\u00e9sent article”, meaning the withholding on dividends does not apply to dividends paid to a legal person meeting the listed conditions, but those conditions, minimum holding, holding period and form, are strict, and a deemed distribution arising from an adjustment rarely arrives with the paperwork that would have secured the exemption. The corporate tax base itself follows the territoriality rule of Article 209 of the CGI<\/a>, under which “les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices passibles de l’imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s sont d\u00e9termin\u00e9s d’apr\u00e8s les r\u00e8gles fix\u00e9es par les articles 34 \u00e0 45 , 53 A \u00e0 57”, meaning corporate profits are computed under Articles 34 to 45 and 53 A to 57, and “en cas de d\u00e9ficit subi pendant un exercice, ce d\u00e9ficit est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une charge de l’exercice suivant”, meaning a loss of one year is carried forward as a charge of the following year. Keep that carry-forward mechanism in mind: in ST Dupont the company fought to have its reported losses restored alongside the d\u00e9charge, and the court examined the deficit point on its own terms. Every euro of adjustment that you overturn, or every euro of loss that you preserve, reduces the French tax bill of later profitable years.<\/p>\n When the audit ends with a proposal to add back your management fees, do not panic and do not concede by silence: the French procedure gives you several levels of defence, but each has a deadline and each rewards the taxpayer who answers on the merits. The audit itself follows the adversarial procedure that Article 57<\/a> recalls: the tax base is assessed “en suivant la proc\u00e9dure contradictoire d\u00e9finie aux articles L. 57 \u00e0 L. 61 du m\u00eame livre”, meaning following the adversarial procedure defined in Articles L. 57 to L. 61 of the Tax Procedure Book. Concretely, you receive a proposed adjustment, you have thirty days to send observations, and you should use that window fully: this is the cheapest moment to kill an adjustment, because the auditor can still abandon it without losing face. Your reply should be drafted with your French counsel and your transfer-pricing economist together, and it should mirror the auditor’s structure point by point: reality of each service with exhibits, pricing method with comparables, treaty position on withholding with residence certificate, and computation showing the corrected base if any part is conceded. A partial concession on a weak invoice line, offered explicitly to save the rest, often succeeds where blanket denial fails.<\/p>\n If the adjustment is maintained, the dispute moves to the claim stage. File a formal complaint with the tax administration within the time limit printed on your assessment notice, attaching the full documentary file rather than a summary: service agreement, invoices, proof of delivery, pricing memo, benchmarking study, parent’s residence certificate, and the relevant treaty articles. Ask for a hierarchical review, the recours hi\u00e9rarchique, which brings a senior officer to look at the file with fresh eyes, and for significant transfer-pricing cases request referral to the departmental commission, the body whose opinion led in ST Dupont to a fifty percent reduction granted by the administration itself. From abroad, organise representation now, not later: give your French lawyer a written power of attorney covering correspondence, access to the electronic file and signature of submissions, designate the French subsidiary’s address or your counsel’s office for service of documents, and set up calendar alerts for every procedural deadline in both French and your local time. Missed deadlines in French tax litigation are almost never forgiven, and distance is no excuse the court will accept.<\/p>\n If the administration rejects your claim, the case goes to court: first the tribunal administratif of the place of taxation, then the cour administrative d’appel, and finally the Conseil d’Etat on points of law. Your pleadings should lean on the three decisions examined in this article, because they map exactly onto the three battles of a management-fee case. On the reality and proportionality of the charge, cite the Malakoff doctrine: the administration must prove abnormality with facts and may not substitute its own business judgment, so force it to say precisely which service was useless and which price was excessive compared to which market reference. On transfer pricing, cite ST Dupont both ways: accept the presumption mechanism, then defeat it with equivalent consideration, your own comparables, your cost-plus build-up, and evidence that the subsidiary’s losses had genuine business causes, the very argument the court examined before rejecting it on the facts of that case. On withholding, cite Ronde et Jolie to frame the effective-use test, then distinguish your facts: where part of the parent’s work was genuinely performed and consumed abroad, isolate that part with separate invoicing and separate proof, so the court can exempt it without throwing out the whole assessment. Throughout, quantify everything: judges trust tables of hours, costs and margins far more than adjectives about strategic value.<\/p>\n While the dispute runs, manage cash and risk as carefully as the legal argument. Ask for deferred payment, the sursis de paiement, when you file your claim so that enforced collection is suspended while the case is examined; if deferral requires guarantees, negotiate their scope rather than refusing them outright. Keep paying the current year’s fees under the corrected policy from the day of the audit, because repeating the same pattern after being warned converts a technical adjustment into a deliberate fault with higher penalties. Inform the foreign parent’s auditors and lenders of the contingent liability, align the group’s transfer-pricing policy across countries so that a concession made in France does not create a taxable gain elsewhere with no correlative relief, and check the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable treaty if double taxation looms. Finally, use the quiet period of the dispute to rebuild the file for the future: new service agreement, annual benchmarking update, quarterly reporting pack from parent to subsidiary, and a withholding-treaty checklist applied to every wire. The best outcome of a reassessment is not only the d\u00e9charge you obtain, but the audit-proof circuit you put in place so the next auditor finds nothing to adjust.<\/p>\n Management fees between a French subsidiary and its foreign parent are neither forbidden nor automatically deductible: they are deductible when they pay for real services, priced at market levels, proven by contemporaneous documents, taxed correctly at the border, and defended through the proper procedure when challenged. The abnormal-management doctrine requires the administration to prove its case with facts, the transfer-pricing rules presume an advantage from any gap with comparable prices but let you rebut it with equivalent consideration, and the withholding rules look to where the service is effectively used. The three court decisions in this article show each mechanism at work: excess interest censured then sent back for proper market comparison, royalties and margins added back where comparables and persistent losses told a consistent story, and service fees held subject to withholding where use abroad was never proven. A foreign founder who builds the file before the invoice, applies the treaty before the wire, and answers the auditor within the thirty-day windows has every chance of keeping the deduction. The founder who invoices first and documents later pays twice: once in reassessed tax, once in the cost of reconstructing proof under pressure.<\/p>\n Get a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> (Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen) or send your documents through our contact page<\/a> for a review of your management fees, your transfer-pricing file and your pending reassessment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Your French subsidiary pays management fees to its foreign parent and the auditor rejects the deduction. Real services, market price, transfer-pricing proof, withholding tax and how to challenge the reassessment from abroad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16442,"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-2125250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Surviving the Transfer-Pricing Test With Your Foreign Parent<\/h3>\n
II. Paying the Fee Across the Border and Challenging a Reassessment From Abroad<\/h2>\n
A. Withholding Tax and Privileged Regimes: What to Check Before You Wire the Money<\/h3>\n
B. Challenging the Reassessment Step by Step Without Living in France<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case.<\/h2>\n