You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, and your French company sends several tens of thousands of euros in interest to your foreign parent company every year. The structure is classic: instead of injecting only share capital, the parent funded the French soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e<\/i> (SAS, the flexible French limited company) with a shareholder loan, recorded in France as a compte courant d’associ\u00e9<\/i> (a shareholder current account, the running loan account between a company and its owner) or an intragroup term loan. The French company deducts the interest from its taxable profit, the parent receives the cash, and everybody considers the matter settled. Then the French tax administration opens a v\u00e9rification de comptabilit\u00e9<\/i> (a full on-site audit of the books), and the auditor asks two questions that change everything: at 5 percent, is this rate deductible at all, and was French withholding tax correctly applied when the interest left France?<\/p>\n
This article answers both questions for foreign owners and directors of French companies run from abroad. It explains every French acronym as it goes: the Direction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Finances publiques<\/i> (DGFIP, the French tax administration), the Service des imp\u00f4ts des entreprises<\/i> (SIE, the corporate tax office), the taux moyen de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence<\/i> (the published reference rate capping deductible interest, often called TMP), the Bulletin officiel des Finances publiques<\/i> (Bofip, the administration’s official tax commentary), and the three levels of tax courts, the tribunal administratif<\/i> (TA, first instance), the cour administrative d’appel<\/i> (CAA, appeal court) and the Conseil d’\u00c9tat<\/i> (CE, the supreme administrative court). Part I explains how much interest your French company can legally deduct, including how to prove that a rate above the official cap is arm’s length. Part II explains the withholding tax due when the interest crosses the border, the treaty and European reliefs that can reduce it, and the trap in which disallowed interest is reclassified as a deemed dividend and taxed a second time. Each step gives the exact protective text and the practical move to make from abroad.<\/p>\nI. How much interest your French company can deduct on money lent by its foreign parent<\/h2>\n
A. How to apply the two legal ceilings: the reference rate and the related-party rule<\/h3>\n
French law starts from a generous principle and then adds two ceilings. The principle sits in Article 39 of the General Tax Code (Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts<\/i>, CGI): “Les int\u00e9r\u00eats servis aux associ\u00e9s \u00e0 raison des sommes qu’ils laissent ou mettent \u00e0 la disposition de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, en sus de leur part du capital, quelle que soit la forme de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, dans la limite de ceux calcul\u00e9s \u00e0 un taux \u00e9gal \u00e0 la moyenne annuelle des taux effectifs moyens pratiqu\u00e9s par les \u00e9tablissements de cr\u00e9dit et les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de financement pour des pr\u00eats \u00e0 taux variable aux entreprises, d’une dur\u00e9e initiale sup\u00e9rieure \u00e0 deux ans.”<\/a>. In plain terms, interest paid to a shareholder on money left at the company’s disposal is deductible, but only up to a rate equal to the annual average of average effective rates charged by banks on variable-rate business loans of more than two years. That published average is the reference rate, and the administration’s official guidance confirms the mechanics in everyday language: the formalities of the current account, including its remuneration, are set by the articles or by a written current-account agreement between the company and the shareholder<\/a>, and the official business portal confirms the mechanics<\/a>: where the contractual rate exceeds the reference rate, the excess interest paid to the shareholder is not deductible from taxable profit. Every loan from a foreign parent therefore needs a written agreement stating the rate, the term and the repayment conditions, because without that agreement the auditor’s first finding writes itself.<\/p>\n The second ceiling applies specifically because the lender is related to the borrower. Article 212, I of the same code provides: “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 : a) Dans la limite de ceux calcul\u00e9s d’apr\u00e8s le taux pr\u00e9vu au premier alin\u00e9a du 3\u00b0 du 1 du m\u00eame article 39 ou, s’ils sont sup\u00e9rieurs, d’apr\u00e8s le taux que cette entreprise emprunteuse aurait pu obtenir d’\u00e9tablissements ou d’organismes financiers ind\u00e9pendants dans des conditions analogues”<\/a>. Read carefully, because this sentence contains both the threat and the escape route. The threat is that interest paid to a related foreign parent is capped at the reference rate. The escape route is the second half of the sentence: if the French company can show that an independent bank would have lent to it at a higher rate in comparable conditions, the higher rate becomes deductible. A 5 percent intragroup rate is therefore not automatically excessive; it is deductible in full only if the file proves that a bank, looking at this company with its own risk profile, would have charged 5 percent or more for a loan with the same features. Most reassessments in this area fail or succeed on that single proof, and section B below explains how the supreme court says it must be built.<\/p>\n Two further caps complete the picture and must be checked before any interest figure goes into the tax return. First, Article 212 bis limits net financial charges of a standalone company to the higher of 3 million euros or 30 percent of a defined tax EBITDA: “Les charges financi\u00e8res nettes support\u00e9es par une entreprise non membre d’un groupe, au sens des articles 223 A ou 223 A bis , sont d\u00e9ductibles du r\u00e9sultat fiscal soumis \u00e0 l’imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s dans la limite du plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 des deux montants suivants : 1\u00b0 Trois millions d’euros ; 2\u00b0 30 % de son r\u00e9sultat d\u00e9termin\u00e9 dans les conditions du II.”<\/a> Small and mid-size foreign-owned subsidiaries rarely hit this ceiling, but a heavily leveraged acquisition vehicle can, and the excess carries forward under strict conditions rather than disappearing. Second, a word of history that still matters for old audit years: the former Article 209, IX, known as the amendement Charasse<\/i>, once added back financial charges on shares acquired from a controlling party unless the buyer proved that decisions on the shares were effectively taken in France. That mechanism was litigated all the way to the supreme court, which quoted it as follows: “1. Les charges financi\u00e8res aff\u00e9rentes \u00e0 l’acquisition des titres de participation mentionn\u00e9s au troisi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a du a quinquies du I de l’article 219 sont rapport\u00e9es au b\u00e9n\u00e9fice de l’exercice lorsque l’entreprise n’est pas en mesure de d\u00e9montrer par tous moyens”<\/a> that the relevant decisions were taken in France. The same court later applied the carryforward of old non-deductible interest under former Article 212, II in a dispute over 1.4 to 2.4 million euros of deferred interest (CE, 29 December 2021, No. 441357, Apex Tool Group<\/a>, appeal quashed and case remanded). For current years, the point to retain is simpler: Article 209, IX now reads “IX. \u2013 (Abrog\u00e9)”<\/a> in the version in force since 31 December 2023, so the Charasse add-back belongs to the past, while the reference-rate cap, the related-party rule and the 3 million or 30 percent ceiling govern today. If your audit covers years before the repeal, the old case law still decides those years, and old files must be defended under old law.<\/p>\n The practical consequence for a foreign parent is immediate. Before closing each financial year, reconcile three numbers: the contractual intragroup rate, the reference rate published for that closing date, and the arm’s-length rate your evidence supports. Deduct only what the lowest applicable ceiling allows, document the rest as non-deductible, and keep the detailed administration commentary on shareholder advances, BOI-BIC-CHG-50-50-30<\/a>, on file with the return. A company that deducts 5 percent while the reference rate sits near 3 percent, with no arm’s-length file, is not taking a position; it is booking a future reassessment with late interest running from day one.<\/p>\n The burden of proof lies on the borrowing company, and the supreme court has now spelled out exactly how that burden can be met. In a 2024 decision concerning a French holding company that had paid its parent 5.08 percent on a current-account advance used to buy a building, while the administration allowed only 2.79 percent under Article 39, the court first restated the test: “Le taux que l’entreprise emprunteuse aurait pu obtenir d’\u00e9tablissements ou d’organismes financiers ind\u00e9pendants dans des conditions analogues s’entend, pour l’application de ces dispositions, du taux que de tels \u00e9tablissements ou organismes auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 susceptibles, compte tenu de ses caract\u00e9ristiques propres, notamment de son profil de risque, de lui consentir pour un pr\u00eat pr\u00e9sentant les m\u00eames caract\u00e9ristiques dans des conditions de pleine concurrence.”<\/a> The comparison is therefore specific to the borrowing company, with its own risk profile, for a loan with the same characteristics, at arm’s length. Generic group credit lines and the parent’s own borrowing cost do not answer the question; the hypothetical French bank loan to this French borrower does.<\/p>\n The same decision then validated the taxpayer’s methods in terms every foreign group can reuse. On who proves what, the court held: “L’entreprise emprunteuse, \u00e0 qui incombe la charge de justifier du taux qu’elle aurait pu obtenir d’\u00e9tablissements ou d’organismes financiers ind\u00e9pendants pour un pr\u00eat consenti dans des conditions analogues, a la facult\u00e9 d’apporter cette preuve par tout moyen.”<\/a> Proof by any means is expressly allowed. On comparables, the court accepted benchmarking against bank loans granted at arm’s length to non-financial companies with neighbouring credit ratings, even from mixed business sectors, because rating-agency scales are designed to compare credit risk across sectors: “Pour apporter cette preuve, l’entreprise emprunteuse peut notamment s’appuyer sur les taux d’emprunts bancaires accord\u00e9s, dans des conditions de pleine concurrence, \u00e0 des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s relevant comme elle du secteur non financier, ayant obtenu des notes de cr\u00e9dit voisines de celle qui peut \u00eatre d\u00e9termin\u00e9e pour elle, alors m\u00eame que ces autres soci\u00e9t\u00e9s appartiendraient \u00e0 des secteurs d’activit\u00e9 h\u00e9t\u00e9rog\u00e8nes, d\u00e8s lors que les syst\u00e8mes de notation de cr\u00e9dit \u00e9labor\u00e9s par les agences de notation visent \u00e0 comparer les risques de cr\u00e9dit des entreprises not\u00e9es apr\u00e8s prise en compte, notamment, de leur secteur d’activit\u00e9.”<\/a> And on bond yields as an alternative benchmark, the court added: “L’entreprise emprunteuse peut \u00e9galement tenir compte du rendement d’emprunts obligataires \u00e9manant d’entreprises se trouvant dans des conditions \u00e9conomiques comparables, lorsque ces emprunts constituent, dans l’hypoth\u00e8se consid\u00e9r\u00e9e, une alternative r\u00e9aliste \u00e0 un pr\u00eat intragroupe.”<\/a> The outcome rewarded the prepared: the appeal judgment was quashed and the case remanded (CE, 5 April 2024, No. 471139, GEII Rivoli Holding<\/a>). For a foreign parent, the lesson is operational. Commission the transfer-pricing style rate study before the loan is drawn, not after the audit notice arrives: determine a credit rating for the French borrower on a standalone basis, collect comparable bank facilities and, where realistic, comparable bond yields, and keep the written term sheets or bank refusal letters that show what independent lenders actually offered. Store the loan agreement, the rating memo and the comparable set with the French accountant so the file exists in France on the day the auditor walks in. A rate defended by a contemporaneous rating-based study survives; a rate defended by an after-the-fact memo from the parent’s finance director does not.<\/p>\n Distance changes nothing about the procedure but everything about preparation. The auditor examines the French company’s books in France, and the Tax Procedure Code allows the administration, once it has gathered indications of an indirect profit transfer within the meaning of Article 57, to demand targeted documentation: “Lorsque, au cours d’une v\u00e9rification de comptabilit\u00e9 ou d’un examen de comptabilit\u00e9, l’administration a r\u00e9uni des \u00e9l\u00e9ments faisant pr\u00e9sumer qu’une entreprise, autre que celles mentionn\u00e9es au I de l’article L. 13 AA, a op\u00e9r\u00e9 un transfert indirect de b\u00e9n\u00e9fices, au sens des dispositions de l’ article 57 du code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts, elle peut demander \u00e0 cette entreprise des informations et documents pr\u00e9cisant”<\/a> the nature of the intragroup relationships. That is Article L13 B of the Tax Procedure Code, and its request arrives with a short deadline. A foreign director who must first discover what a demande L13 B<\/i> is, then find the loan papers in another country, then commission a rating study under time pressure, has already lost the rhythm of the audit. Keep a standing French file: signed loan or current-account agreement, board minutes approving the rate, the rating and comparables study, bank correspondence, and proof of actual payment of the interest. Update it every year the loan remains outstanding, because the reference rate moves and the arm’s-length answer can move with it.<\/p>\n Interest that leaves France for a foreign parent is, as a starting point, subject to French withholding tax (retenue \u00e0 la source<\/i>). Article 119 bis, 1 of the Tax Code attaches the levy to investment income paid to persons without French tax domicile, and the statute states the mechanism plainly: the relevant income “donnent lieu \u00e0 l’application d’une retenue \u00e0 la source dont le taux est fix\u00e9 par le 1 de l’article 187”<\/a>. Article 187, 1 then sets the rate for corporate recipients: after the specific case of negotiable bonds, “Celui pr\u00e9vu au deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a du I de l’article 219 pour tous les autres revenus.”<\/a> That cross-reference points to the standard corporate income tax rate, and Article 219, I states it without ambiguity: “Le taux normal de l’imp\u00f4t est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 25 %.”<\/a> The default arithmetic is therefore simple: interest paid by a French company to a foreign parent company bears 25 percent French withholding, deducted at payment by the French payer, unless a relief applies. Two boundary warnings matter immediately. First, payments routed to a non-cooperative state or territory face a 75 percent rate under Article 187, 2: “Le taux de la retenue \u00e0 la source pr\u00e9vue au 2 de l’article 119 bis est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 75 % pour les produits mentionn\u00e9s aux articles 108 \u00e0 117 bis ou 119 bis A et pay\u00e9s hors de France, dans un Etat ou territoire non coop\u00e9ratif au sens de l’article 238-0 A”<\/a>, subject only to a narrow proof that the routing has neither the object nor the effect of tax fraud. Second, the domestic rate is only the starting point of the analysis, never its conclusion, because treaties and European law very often reduce it.<\/p>\n The reliefs come in two layers, and they must be claimed in the right order. The first layer is the applicable double-tax treaty between France and the parent’s state, most of which cut the interest withholding to 10 percent, 5 percent or zero depending on the treaty and the beneficial owner. Treaty relief at source requires the French payer to hold the foreign parent’s certificate of residence and the treaty claim paperwork before paying net; paying gross on a mere promise that the parent “is treaty-entitled” exposes the French company to the full 25 percent plus penalties if the papers never arrive. Where full tax was withheld, the excess is reclaimed afterwards through the treaty reclaim channel with the French administration, which is slow but routine. The second layer is European: the EU Interest and Royalties Directive 2003\/49\/EC can eliminate withholding entirely on interest paid by a French subsidiary to an associated company in another Member State, provided the companies meet the association threshold, the holding duration and the beneficial-ownership and anti-abuse conditions. The directive does not apply itself; the French payer must hold the qualifying parent’s documentation at the time of payment and apply the exemption deliberately, not by accident. A common and expensive mistake is to confuse the two layers: a US or Gulf parent has no directive relief and lives or dies by its treaty, while an EU parent that meets the directive’s conditions should generally not be suffering any withholding at all. Map, before the first interest payment of each year, which layer covers this parent, which papers must be in the French file on payment day, and which reclaim route applies if tax was over-withheld.<\/p>\n Cash planning should reflect this order of operations. Price the loan with the after-withholding cost in mind: a 5 percent coupon with 25 percent withholding costs the group the same gross interest but delivers only 3.75 percent net to the parent until reclaimed, which changes the economics of the whole funding structure. Calendar the residence certificates early in the year, because foreign tax offices issue them slowly and French auditors test the payment-day file, not the reconstructed one. And coordinate with the parent’s home-country taxation: interest taxable in France and in the parent’s state is relieved under the treaty’s elimination article, usually by foreign tax credit, so the French withholding file and the home-country return must tell the same story about the same interest on the same dates. Mismatched characterisation, a payment treated as interest in France and as a dividend at home, is where double taxation permanently lodges.<\/p>\n The most dangerous moment in these files is not the denial of the deduction; it is what the administration does next with the denied amount. When interest paid to a foreign parent is recharacterised as an indirect transfer of profits or as a distribution, France taxes the same euros a second time as a deemed dividend, with dividend withholding under Article 119 bis, 2. The pattern is not theoretical. In a 2024 supreme court case, the administration had, after auditing a French holding company, “remis en cause, sur le fondement de l’article 57 du code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts, la d\u00e9duction d’honoraires (” management fees “) que cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 a vers\u00e9s, au cours des ann\u00e9es 2010 et 2011, \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 m\u00e8re du groupe auquel elle appartient, la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 am\u00e9ricaine Alcoa Inc, et l’a soumise, en cons\u00e9quence, \u00e0 raison de ces m\u00eames sommes, \u00e0 la retenue \u00e0 la source pr\u00e9vue par le 2\u00b0 de l’article 119 bis du code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts”<\/a>. Deduction denied on the way in, dividend withholding charged on the way out: the double hit is the standard mechanics of Article 57 combined with Article 119 bis, 2, and it applies to excessive interest exactly as it applied to those management fees. The legal engine is the presumption the court restated in the same decision: “Pour l’\u00e9tablissement de l’imp\u00f4t sur le revenu d\u00fb par les entreprises qui sont sous la d\u00e9pendance (…) d’entreprises situ\u00e9es hors de France, les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices indirectement transf\u00e9r\u00e9s \u00e0 ces derni\u00e8res, soit par voie de majoration ou de diminution des prix d’achats ou de vente soit par tout autre moyen, sont incorpor\u00e9s aux r\u00e9sultats accus\u00e9s par les comptabilit\u00e9s (…)”<\/a>, and “Ces dispositions instituent, d\u00e8s lors que l’administration \u00e9tablit l’existence d’un lien de d\u00e9pendance et d’une pratique entrant dans leurs pr\u00e9visions, une pr\u00e9somption de transfert indirect de b\u00e9n\u00e9fices qui ne peut utilement \u00eatre combattue par l’entreprise imposable en France que si celle-ci apporte la preuve que les avantages qu’elle a consentis ont \u00e9t\u00e9 justifi\u00e9s par l’obtention de contreparties.”<\/a> Note the allocation of roles: once dependence plus a suspicious practice is shown, the company must prove the counterpart, the real services, the real credit, the real arm’s-length price. In the cited case the taxpayer lost at every level (CE, 23 July 2024, No. 474667, Howmet Holding France<\/a>, appeal dismissed), precisely because neither the reality of the services billed by the US parent nor their on-charging chain was established. Interest files win or lose on the same ground: produce the signed loan, the funds actually transferred, the interest actually paid, and the arm’s-length study, or face both the add-back and the dividend withholding.<\/p>\n A second precedent sharpens the warning for groups with European parents. A French distributor wholly owned through a Dutch vehicle by an Italian group underwent audit for 2009 and 2010; the administration considered that it had indirectly transferred profits to the Italian company, and the first-instance court had discharged the extra corporate tax, the Article 119 bis, 2 withholding and related local taxes (CE, 23 November 2020, No. 425577, Ferragamo France<\/a>: “Il ressort des pi\u00e8ces du dossier soumis aux juges du fond que la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Ferragamo France, alors d\u00e9tenue \u00e0 100 % par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 hollandaise Ferragamo International BV, elle-m\u00eame d\u00e9tenue par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 italienne Salvatore Ferragamo SpA, et qui distribuait quasi exclusivement les produits de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 italienne, a fait l’objet d’une v\u00e9rification de comptabilit\u00e9 portant sur les exercices clos en 2009 et 2010, \u00e0 l’issue de laquelle l’administration fiscale a estim\u00e9 qu’elle avait indirectement transf\u00e9r\u00e9 des b\u00e9n\u00e9fices \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 italienne”<\/a>). The supreme court quashed the appeal judgment favourable to the company and remanded the case, confirming that Article 57 applies to corporate tax by way of Article 209 and that the presumption, once triggered, shifts the proof of counterparts onto the French company. European routing through the Netherlands changed nothing about the analysis. For a foreign parent lending to its French subsidiary, the message is that the interest rate, the reality of the loan and the treaty paperwork will be tested together, and weakness on any one of the three contaminates the other two.<\/p>\n Defending such a reassessment from abroad follows a fixed route that the cited cases themselves illustrate: contentious claim (r\u00e9clamation contentieuse<\/i>) to the corporate tax office, then petition to the administrative court of the company’s place of taxation, typically Paris or Montreuil for foreign-owned groups, then appeal to the administrative appeal court, then review before the Conseil d’\u00c9tat. Every one of the decisions cited above travelled exactly that path, which proves that distance is no bar to litigating: powers of attorney, counsel in France, sworn translations of the foreign loan documents and video preparation calls are everyday practice. Two defensive weapons deserve special attention. First, attack the administration’s own commentary where it overreaches the statute: in the Zimmer Biomet case the supreme court annulled paragraph 70 of the Bofip commentary on acquisition finance charges, holding “Le paragraphe n\u00b0 70 des commentaires administratifs publi\u00e9s le 29 mars 2013 au Bulletin officiel des finances publiques sous la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence BOI-IS-BASE-35-30-10 est annul\u00e9”<\/a> (CE, 7 March 2019, No. 421688). Auditors apply Bofip as if it were law; judges do not, and unlawful commentary gets annulled. Second, use the penalty and interest layer as negotiation ground: once the principal is technically debatable and the file shows good-faith documentation, penalty relief and payment plans regularly close cases that the principal alone could not. Throughout, keep the French registered office alive and the professional tax portal monitored, because notices served on the si\u00e8ge social<\/i> or the online account count as received even if the director never opened them, and the claim period shown on each tax notice runs without mercy for directors in other time zones. For the wider journey of funding and running the company, from capital structure to payroll, see our pillar guide for setting up a company in France as a foreign founder<\/a>, and if the dispute shades into exit strategy, our guide on closing or selling a French company from abroad<\/a>.<\/p>\n A shareholder loan from a foreign parent is the most natural way to fund a French company, and also the most audited. Deduct the interest only up to the reference rate of Article 39 unless a contemporaneous arm’s-length file proves that an independent bank would have charged more for the same loan to this borrower, as Article 212 allows and the GEII Rivoli decision of 2024 explains method by method. Watch the 3 million euros or 30 percent ceiling of Article 212 bis for leveraged structures, and remember that the repealed Charasse add-back still governs audit years before its repeal. On payment day, withhold 25 percent under Articles 119 bis and 187 unless the treaty file or the EU directive exemption is complete before the transfer, never after, and keep non-cooperative routing out of the structure entirely at 75 percent risk. Above all, treat the interest file as a litigation file from the first euro lent: signed agreement, funds traced, interest actually paid, rating-based rate study, residence and treaty papers in France. The Howmet and Ferragamo cases show what happens without that file, an add-back plus dividend withholding on the same sums, and the GEII Rivoli case shows what happens with it, a quashed appeal judgment and a second chance. Foreign owners who build the file before the audit negotiate from strength; those who reconstruct it afterwards pay for the difference.<\/p>\n Phone consultation: 80 EUR incl. VAT. Get a phone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or write via our contact page<\/a>. Our Paris office advises foreign founders and companies across France and internationally.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign parent lent money to your French company? Deductibility caps, 25% withholding, treaty relief and the dividend-reclassification trap, defended from abroad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16550,"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-2127882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nB. How to prove from abroad that a rate above the cap is arm’s length<\/h3>\n
II. Paying the interest abroad: withholding tax, treaties and the reclassification trap<\/h2>\n
A. How to withhold correctly on interest paid to a foreign parent and how to reduce the cost<\/h3>\n
B. How to survive the reclassification: when disallowed interest is taxed as a dividend<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case?<\/h2>\n