You are British, you live in France or spend long periods there, and your family owns a French house, or plans to buy one. A French notaire (the public officer who handles conveyancing and estates in France), a neighbour in the Dordogne or an online forum has probably told you to put the house into an SCI. The SCI, or soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re (a French non-trading property company), is the vehicle thousands of British families use to hold French bricks. Since Brexit, the questions around it have changed. You are now a third-country national, your right to live in France depends on a visa or on the Withdrawal Agreement rather than on European Union citizenship, and every tax and succession step is read through the France-United Kingdom treaties rather than through European Union mechanisms. This guide explains, in plain English and with the exact French legal texts, whether an SCI still makes sense for a British family, how to set one up and run it properly, what it costs and how it is taxed, how shares in it pass to your children or are sold, and how to challenge a refusal or a tax bill when something goes wrong. Every French term is explained the first time it appears, so you can read the statutes and the notaire’s paperwork without a dictionary.<\/p>\n
The short answer is that an SCI remains fully open to British buyers after Brexit, because French company law imposes no nationality condition on its partners (associ\u00e9s, the members of an SCI), but it is neither neutral nor without yearly upkeep. It creates yearly paperwork, a tax life of its own and succession mechanics that must be understood in advance, and unwinding a badly drafted SCI can end in court. The official starting points for your own checks are the Civil Code provisions reproduced below on L\u00e9gifrance, the tax guidance on impots.gouv.fr, the practical pages for Britons on gov.uk Living in France, and the explanations published by the French notaires and by service-public.fr. What those pages do not give you is the British angle: residence, treaty relief and the way French courts actually treat blocked sales, dismissed managers and gifts of shares attacked by a disappointed heir. That is what this article adds, with the decisions and articles you can verify yourself.<\/p>\n
Two companion guides on this site cover neighbouring questions: how to set up a family SCI for a French holiday home, and how to pass SCI shares to children. This guide is the costs, running and exit companion: setting up a family SCI for a French holiday home<\/a> and passing SCI shares to children<\/a>.<\/p>\n An SCI is a soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile, a civil and therefore non-commercial company whose purpose is to own and manage property. The definition sits in Article 1832 of the Civil Code<\/a>: “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est institu\u00e9e par deux ou plusieurs personnes qui conviennent par un contrat d’affecter \u00e0 une entreprise commune des biens ou leur industrie en vue de partager le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice ou de profiter de l’\u00e9conomie qui pourra en r\u00e9sulter.” In ordinary English, two or more people agree by contract to put assets or work into a joint enterprise in order to share the profit or to benefit from the saving that results. For a British couple, or a parent with adult children, the joint enterprise is simply the purchase and management of the French house, and the benefit is the shared use and the organised transmission of it. One person alone cannot form an SCI in the ordinary way, so a single buyer must either buy in their own name (en nom propre) or bring in a second partner, even with a token one per cent holding. The capital can be modest, a few hundred euros is common, and the real money enters later through the partners’ current accounts (comptes courants d’associ\u00e9s), which are loans the partners make to their own company and which are repaid under documented terms.<\/p>\n Brexit changed nothing about who may be a partner. There is no French rule reserving SCIs to French or European Union nationals, and the post-Brexit guidance on gov.uk treats property ownership as unaffected: what changed is your right to reside, which now depends on a visa, a Withdrawal Agreement residence permit or the ninety-day Schengen allowance, not the right to own bricks or shares. The practical consequence is timing. If you are buying while still United Kingdom resident, organise the SCI before the purchase deed (acte de vente), because transferring a house you already own into an SCI afterwards means a second conveyance, a second notaire’s fee and registration duty all over again. If one partner cannot travel, a power of attorney (procuration) signed before a notaire or a solicitor with an apostille lets the purchase go ahead. And because banks lend to the SCI rather than to you personally when the company borrows, a French mortgage application in the name of the SCI should be started early, with the draft statutes (statuts) attached so the lender sees who the manager (g\u00e9rant) is and who can bind the company.<\/p>\n The statutes are the heart of the matter, and this is where British families most often underinvest. A one-page template downloaded from the internet will leave every difficult question unanswered, and those questions always arrive eventually: who decides to sell, who decides to carry out works, what happens when one partner stops paying, what happens when the parents die. The statute should name the manager and define their powers, set the majority for ordinary decisions and for the sale of the building, organise the approval (agr\u00e9ment) of any new partner, provide for the valuation of shares when someone leaves, and state what happens on death. Article 1852 of the Civil Code<\/a> sets the default that British drafters must know: “Les d\u00e9cisions qui exc\u00e8dent les pouvoirs reconnus aux g\u00e9rants sont prises selon les dispositions statutaires ou, en l’absence de telles dispositions, \u00e0 l’unanimit\u00e9 des associ\u00e9s.” Decisions going beyond the manager’s powers are taken under the statutes, or unanimously if the statutes say nothing. Silence therefore means unanimity, which means any single partner can block a sale. Families who want workable governance write the majority rule down: day-to-day management for the manager alone, important acts such as borrowing or letting at an enhanced majority, sale of the building at a defined supermajority or unanimity kept deliberately for that one act. Profits and losses follow the capital unless the statutes say otherwise, as Article 1844-1 of the Civil Code<\/a> confirms: “La part de chaque associ\u00e9 dans les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices et sa contribution aux pertes se d\u00e9terminent \u00e0 proportion de sa part dans le capital social et la part de l’associ\u00e9 qui n’a apport\u00e9 que son industrie est \u00e9gale \u00e0 celle de l’associ\u00e9 qui a le moins apport\u00e9, le tout sauf clause contraire.” Shares proportionate to capital, unless the statutes provide differently, which lets parents keep control with a larger holding while children hold smaller stakes.<\/p>\n Running the SCI after registration is a discipline, not a formality. The company needs its own bank account, its accounts kept separately from the partners’ personal money, a partners’ meeting (assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale) at least once a year with written minutes (proc\u00e8s-verbal), and accounts approved and filed in the records (registre). Rents, insurance, local taxes and works are paid from the company account, and any use of the house by a partner counts as a benefit that should be minuted. British families fail this discipline in two classic ways: paying SCI bills from a United Kingdom personal account and never minuting anything, which makes the company look fictitious if a creditor or an heir later attacks it, and letting one partner run everything from London while the others sign nothing for years, which stores up a challenge to every past decision. The company is registered with the companies register (registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s) through the single business formality window (guichet unique), publishes a formation notice, and obtains its registration number. Any later change, new manager, new address, amended statutes, must be filed the same way. A company whose public record still names a manager who resigned five years ago will have every deed questioned by the buyer’s notaire, and the price of that delay is measured in lost sales.<\/p>\n Two traps deserve early attention because they hit British files specifically. The first is the company’s object (objet social). An SCI is civil, so its object must stay civil: buying, holding, managing and letting its own property. If the statutes promise a commercial activity such as a full-time furnished-holiday business with hotel-type services, or if the company in practice runs one, the administration and the courts can reclassify it, with company tax and commercial accounting as the consequence. A family that wants a genuine holiday-let business should take separate advice on the furnished-letting regimes before drafting the object, and keep the SCI’s object honestly aligned with what the house really does. The second trap is the bank guarantee. French banks routinely ask the partners to stand surety (caution) for the SCI’s loan, which is normal, but the guarantee deed must state its amount and duration clearly, and partners should understand that the shield of limited liability works between the company’s creditors and the partners’ assets only up to their contributions, while a personal surety reopens the door. Read the caution before signing it, cap it where the bank accepts a cap, and keep a copy with the statutes.<\/p>\n Setting up an SCI costs real money, and British buyers should budget before instructing anyone. Formation itself means drafting the statutes, often with a notaire or a lawyer, paying the registration and publication costs, and filing with the companies register. If the SCI buys the house from the start, the purchase carries the usual French conveyancing costs: the notaire’s fee on a scale, registration duty (droits d’enregistrement) and the mortgage registration where there is borrowing. Transferring a house you already own into your new SCI is legally a sale to the company, so those same purchase costs arise a second time, plus the capital gains position of the transferor must be settled. That is why the decision should be taken before the first purchase, not after. Yearly running costs follow: accounting assistance, the meeting paperwork, insurance in the company’s name, and the tax compliance described below. None of this is ruinous for a family house of real value, but it means an SCI for a small studio is rarely worthwhile, and anyone promising you a company with no costs and no paperwork is selling a future dispute.<\/p>\n The default tax treatment is transparency (translucidit\u00e9 fiscale), and this single idea explains most of the yearly position. The SCI itself generally pays no income tax; each partner is taxed personally on their share of the company’s rental result, in France and, for a British resident partner, with the treaty machinery allocating the charge. The mechanism is written in Article 1655 ter of the General Tax Code<\/a>, which provides that the companies it describes “sont r\u00e9put\u00e9es, quelle que soit leur forme juridique, ne pas avoir de personnalit\u00e9 distincte de celle de leurs membres pour l’application des imp\u00f4ts directs”. They are deemed, whatever their legal form, to have no personality separate from their members for direct taxes. The same article continues: “Notamment, les associ\u00e9s ou actionnaires sont personnellement soumis \u00e0 l’imp\u00f4t sur le revenu ou \u00e0 l’imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, suivant le cas, pour la part des revenus sociaux correspondant \u00e0 leurs droits dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” Each partner is personally liable to income tax or company tax, as the case may be, on the share of the company’s income matching their rights. The parallel provision for civil companies generally is Article 8 of the General Tax Code<\/a>, the transparency article for partnerships and civil companies. In practice, an SCI that lets its house unfurnished declares rental income under the French property-income rules, each partner picks up their fraction, a United Kingdom resident partner declares the same income at home with a credit for the French tax under the treaty, and an SCI whose house is simply enjoyed by the family with no rent declares no rental income but still files what the law requires. Where the family wants the company taxed as a company instead, the SCI can opt for company tax (imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s). The option changes everything, depreciation, deduction of real costs, taxation of gains inside the company, and a second layer of tax when profits are distributed, so it should only be taken on computed figures, never on a slogan, and the option is exercised formally with the tax office (service des imp\u00f4ts des entreprises).<\/p>\n Capital gains need the same clear-eyed treatment, because the family will eventually sell the house or the shares. When the SCI sells the building, the gain is computed partner by partner under the private capital gains regime, and the key text is Article 150 U of the General Tax Code<\/a>: “lors de la cession \u00e0 titre on\u00e9reux de biens immobiliers b\u00e2tis ou non b\u00e2tis ou de droits relatifs \u00e0 ces biens, sont passibles de l’imp\u00f4t sur le revenu”. Gains on the sale for consideration of built or unbuilt property or of rights in such property are liable to income tax. The holding-period relief that reduces the taxable base year by year, the surcharge on large gains and the social levies all apply at partner level, and a British partner who has left France remains taxable in France on a French building with treaty credit at home. When instead the partners sell their shares to a buyer who steps into the SCI, the buyer takes the company’s history and the seller faces registration duty on the share price at the buyer’s expense in practice. Article 726 of the General Tax Code<\/a> sets the scale, and for a property company the decisive line reads: “pour les cessions de participations dans des personnes morales \u00e0 pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rance immobili\u00e8re.” Transfers of holdings in property-rich entities bear duty at five per cent. A share sale therefore costs the buyer five per cent registration duty on the price, against the higher conveyancing burden of a direct building sale, which is exactly why buyers often discount the share price and why sellers should compare the two routes net of all duties before choosing. Keep both computations on one page before signing anything.<\/p>\n Wealth tax is the third yearly question British families ask, and the answer changed with the reform that replaced the old solidarity tax with the real-estate wealth tax (imp\u00f4t sur la fortune immobili\u00e8re). Article 964 of the General Tax Code<\/a> institutes it in one sentence: “Il est institu\u00e9 un imp\u00f4t annuel sur les actifs immobiliers d\u00e9sign\u00e9 sous le nom d’imp\u00f4t sur la fortune immobili\u00e8re.” An annual tax on real-estate assets is instituted under the name of real-estate wealth tax. Shares in an SCI fall into the taxable base for their underlying French property value where the thresholds are met, currently a net taxable estate above 1,300,000 euros, with debts deductible under strict conditions and the family home attracting a statutory reduction only where it is the liable person’s actual residence. British newcomers benefit from a time-limited relief on non-French assets for the first five years of French residence, but the French house held through the SCI is taxable from the start. Value the shares at 1 January each year on the real value of the building less qualifying company debts, keep the valuation note with the meeting file, and declare through the normal income-tax return annexes. The families who drift into wealth-tax trouble are almost always those who never valued the shares at all.<\/p>\n When the tax office disagrees, the challenge follows the standard French path, and the SCI form changes nothing about your rights. Read the reassessment (proposition de rectification) line by line, identify the exact point contested, rental result, gain computation, wealth-tax valuation or duty rate, and answer within the stated deadline with documents: statutes, minutes, bank statements, loan deeds, valuation reports and the treaty residence certificates. Most SCI reassessments turn on facts the family can prove, the reality of a loan in a partner’s current account, the date a house became available for letting, the works invoices behind a gain computation. If the reply is rejected, the formal complaint (r\u00e9clamation) suspends nothing by itself, so diary the payment and collection dates separately and ask for a payment stay where the law allows it. Throughout, keep the company’s records immaculate, because a tax judge reads minutes and bank statements before doctrines, and a family whose SCI paperwork is complete settles earlier and cheaper.<\/p>\n Gifting SCI shares to children during your lifetime (donation de parts sociales) is the classic reason British families form the company, and it works because shares are movable property that can be divided generously while the parents keep control. The deed is signed before a notaire, the gift is registered, the company records the new holdings, and the statutes’ approval clause is checked so the gift cannot later be called irregular. Parents commonly give the bare ownership (nue-propri\u00e9t\u00e9) while retaining the life interest (usufruit): the children own the future, the parents keep the income and the use, and the value taxed on the gift reflects the split by the parents’ ages. Repeat gifts stay within the renewable allowances, each child is taxed on their own net share, and the recall of earlier gifts is computed by the notaire from the family record. The essential discipline is to keep that record: every gift deed, every declared value, every earlier allowance used. A family that can hand the notaire a complete gift history gets a clean computation; a family that cannot pays for searches and risks a reassessment.<\/p>\n On death, the shares are in the estate and French duty reaches them even though they are technically movable. Article 750 ter of the General Tax Code<\/a> is the territorial net: “Les biens meubles et immeubles, que ces derniers soient poss\u00e9d\u00e9s directement ou indirectement, situ\u00e9s en France”. Movable and immovable property, whether held directly or indirectly, situated in France, falls within the duty. A French house held through an SCI is the textbook case of indirect holding, so the shares do not escape French succession duty by virtue of being shares. Each heir is then taxed on their net share after the applicable allowance, and the France-United Kingdom estate treaty prevents the same value being fully taxed twice, normally by crediting the French duty against the United Kingdom liability on the same property. The treaty does not remove the French filing: the estate representative (often the surviving spouse or the eldest child with the notaire) must file the French succession declaration (d\u00e9claration de succession) within the deadline, six months from death where the deceased died in France, twelve months where death occurred abroad, with the share valuation, the liabilities and the treaty claim attached. Keep the French declaration, the United Kingdom inheritance tax account and both assessments together, because either administration can ask how the other valued the same house.<\/p>\n French forced heirship (r\u00e9serve h\u00e9r\u00e9ditaire) is the doctrine British testators find most surprising, and it applies to the SCI shares like to any other asset governed by French succession law. Article 913 of the Civil Code<\/a> fixes the protected fractions: “Les lib\u00e9ralit\u00e9s, soit par actes entre vifs, soit par testament, ne pourront exc\u00e9der la moiti\u00e9 des biens du disposant, s’il ne laisse \u00e0 son d\u00e9c\u00e8s qu’un enfant ; le tiers, s’il laisse deux enfants ; le quart, s’il en laisse trois ou un plus grand nombre.” Gifts and legacies may not exceed half the estate with one child, a third with two children, a quarter with three or more. A British will choosing English law for the estate can govern the succession designation, and our companion guide on British wills and French houses explains that choice in detail, but the choice of law does not authorise gifts of SCI shares designed to empty the estate of a protected heir. French courts look at substance, and the Cour de cassation (the supreme court for civil matters in France) has approved the reinstatement of share transfers organised to defeat a protected heir’s rights. In a decision of 10 June 2026, appeal No K 24-10.363<\/a>, the First Civil Chamber dealt with share transfers where the lower court had held that “les cessions de parts de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Orl\u00e9ans [Localit\u00e9 1] des 29 novembre 1997, 21 f\u00e9vrier et 21 d\u00e9cembre 2001 ont \u00e9t\u00e9 frauduleusement organis\u00e9es pour divertir ces parts de la succession en vue de priver Mme [H] de ses droits r\u00e9servataires”, the transfers of shares had been fraudulently organised to divert those shares from the estate in order to deprive an heir of her protected rights. The lesson for British families is direct: give shares openly, by notarial deed, within the allowances and the disposable portion (quotit\u00e9 disponible), minute the approvals, and never use a chain of transfers at undervalue to disinherit a child. What is given transparently survives; what is diverted is reinstated for the computation of the protected shares, with costs.<\/p>\n If an heir or the tax office attacks the transmission, challenge the precise line rather than the whole settlement. Ask the notaire for the detailed computation (d\u00e9compte de succession) showing the gross assets, the deductible liabilities, the allowance applied to each beneficiary and the rate used, and compare each figure with the deeds and bank statements. Common British-file errors include valuing gifted bare ownership as full ownership, forgetting the recall of an earlier gift, or applying a stranger’s rate to a stepchild treated as a non-relative for duty purposes. Raise the point first in a reasoned letter to the notaire or to the tax office with the supporting documents, then use the formal complaint and appeal routes, keeping every deadline in a single diary. Where the dispute is between heirs, for example a sibling who blocks the approval of a surviving partner or contests the share valuation, the remedy is a summons (assignation) before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), often preceded by a formal demand (mise en demeure) and an attempt at mediation, and the court reads the statutes, the minutes and the valuation report before anything else. Families that kept those three documents current almost always settle; families that did not almost always pay for an expert.<\/p>\n Selling an SCI-held house can be done two ways, and the choice changes the paperwork, the tax and the buyer’s caution. Either the SCI sells the building itself, in which case the manager signs the notarial deed after the partners have authorised the sale under the statutes or unanimously by default, and the price enters the company’s accounts before any distribution, or the partners sell their shares to the buyer, who steps into the SCI with its history, its loans and its latent liabilities. Buyers and their banks usually prefer the first route, a clean building with a clean title (titre), while sellers sometimes prefer the second for its simplicity. Whichever route the family takes, the authorisation must be provable: convene the meeting, state the minimum price and the manager’s powers in the convocation, vote, and annex the resolution to the notaire’s file. A sale signed by a manager whose powers were never voted can be attacked by a dissenting partner, and British families who run the SCI informally from London are the most exposed, because the partner who stayed in France can later claim never to have agreed. If one partner blocks a sale the family considers necessary, the statutes’ majority clause is the first answer, court-authorised withdrawal (retrait judiciaire) the second, and dissolution the last, and they should be tried in that order.<\/p>\n Transfers of shares to outsiders pass through the approval lock, and this is the clause buyers’ solicitors always test. Article 1861 of the Civil Code<\/a> states the default: “Les parts sociales ne peuvent \u00eatre c\u00e9d\u00e9es qu’avec l’agr\u00e9ment de tous les associ\u00e9s.” Shares may be transferred only with the approval of all the partners. The statutes may soften this to a majority or to the manager’s approval, and may waive approval for transfers to partners or family, but whatever the clause says, the procedure must be followed exactly: the planned transfer is notified to the company and to each partner with the request for approval, the meeting votes, and the decision is minuted. The Cour de cassation enforces this strictly, including for forced sales of pledged shares. In a decision of 19 March 2025, appeal No E 22-20.861<\/a>, the First Civil Chamber held that “il incombe au cr\u00e9ancier poursuivant la vente forc\u00e9e de parts sociales de soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile nanties \u00e0 son profit, pour pouvoir se pr\u00e9valoir de l’agr\u00e9ment du cessionnaire, de rapporter la preuve que la r\u00e9alisation forc\u00e9e des parts sociales, soit la date de l’adjudication, a \u00e9t\u00e9 notifi\u00e9e un mois avant la vente tant \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 qu’aux associ\u00e9s”. The creditor pursuing the forced sale of pledged civil-company shares must prove, to rely on the transferee’s approval, that the forced realisation, that is the auction date, was notified one month before the sale to both the company and the partners. If the supreme court demands that rigour from a bank enforcing a pledge, it will demand no less from family members selling to a stranger. Notify properly, wait for the vote, minute it, and register the transfer; the buyer who skips approval buys a lawsuit.<\/p>\n Leaving the SCI without selling the house is possible through withdrawal (retrait) or exclusion mechanics where the statutes provide them. A partner who wants out notifies the company, the shares are valued, by agreement or by court-appointed expert (expert) where the statutes refer to one, and the company or the remaining partners buy them back, sometimes with payment in instalments minuted and secured. Where the statutes are silent and the remaining partners refuse to buy, the court can authorise withdrawal for good cause, but judges expect proof that continued membership has become genuinely impossible, not mere inconvenience. Dismissing the manager (r\u00e9vocation du g\u00e9rant) follows the same logic of written procedure: convene on the statutory notice, vote the dismissal and the appointment of the successor in the same meeting, file the change with the companies register, and notify the bank, because until the bank is told, the dismissed manager’s signature may still move money. British families should note that a manager who is also the majority partner can be difficult to remove without a well-drafted dismissal clause, which is another reason the statutes deserve a full day of attention at formation. Winding up (dissolution-liquidation) closes the story: the partners vote dissolution, a liquidator (liquidateur) settles the debts, sells or allocates the building, files the closure, and each partner receives their share and settles their personal tax on it. Dissolution to escape a dispute usually costs more than the settlement it avoids, so treat it as the last resort it is.<\/p>\n Every refusal and every bill in this area has a matching remedy, and the art is to pick the right one at the right level. If the companies register rejects a filing, correct the exact defect named in the rejection, missing signature, unpublished notice, untranslated apostilled document, and refile; most rejections are clerical. If the bank refuses the SCI’s loan or demands guarantees the family cannot give, ask for the written reasons, offer the capped surety or the additional collateral, and compare a second lender before treating the refusal as final. If a partner refuses approval of a transfer without reasons, put them on formal notice to vote within the statutory time, then ask the court to authorise the transfer or to appoint an expert on valuation, because silence and delay are themselves actionable. If the tax office reassesses the rental result, the gain or the wealth-tax value, answer the precise adjustment with the company records and escalate through complaint and court appeal within the deadlines. And if the family dispute turns personal, which in Franco-British successions it often does, instruct early, value honestly and mediate before suing: judges in this field reward the party whose file is complete and punish the party whose minutes are missing. The SCI protects families who administer it; it exposes those who merely own through it.<\/p>\n For a British family with a French house after Brexit, the SCI remains a sound instrument on three conditions that never change: statutes drafted for your family rather than copied from a template, yearly administration that is real rather than retrospective, and gifts and sales carried out openly at honest values with the approvals minuted. Transparency for income, the five per cent duty on share sales in property-rich companies, wealth tax on the underlying bricks and succession duty on indirectly held French property are not traps once they are priced in advance; they become traps only when discovered afterwards. The two court decisions quoted above draw the boundaries in both directions: share transfers organised to defeat a protected heir are reinstated, and share transfers carried out without exact approval procedure fail even in the hands of a secured creditor. Stay inside those boundaries, keep the deeds, minutes, valuations and treaty certificates in one file, and the SCI will do exactly what British families buy it for: hold the house calmly, transmit it gradually and sell it cleanly. Step outside them, and the same company becomes the dispute.<\/p>\n Every family and every house is different, and the right structure depends on your residence, your children and your plans for the property. For a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm, initial telephone consultation billed at 80 EUR incl. VAT, call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a>. You can also write through our contact page<\/a>, describing the house, the current ownership and the question you need answered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" British family with a French house after Brexit: setting up and running an SCI, yearly tax, gifting and inheriting shares, and challenging refusals and bills.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16304,"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":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2131716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nI. Should a British Family Put Its French House in an SCI After Brexit?<\/h2>\n
A. How Do You Set Up and Run an SCI for a French House?<\/h3>\n
B. What Does an SCI Cost and How Is It Taxed Each Year?<\/h3>\n
II. How Do SCI Shares Pass On, Get Sold, or Get Challenged After Brexit?<\/h2>\n
A. How Do You Gift or Inherit SCI Shares and What French Duty Applies?<\/h3>\n
B. How Do You Sell, Leave or Wind Up the SCI and Challenge a Refusal or a Bill?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n