Your French subsidiary is running short of cash. Payroll is due at the end of the month, the Paris landlord expects next quarter’s rent, and your accountant in Lyon warns that the corporate tax instalment leaves the operating account almost empty. You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, you hold the French company through a foreign parent or directly as a non-resident shareholder, and you can wire 60,000 euros tomorrow morning. The only question is how to send the money so that it helps the company instead of creating a tax reassessment, a blocked repayment or a dispute with a minority partner two years later.<\/p>\n
This is one of the most common emergencies our firm handles for foreign founders and groups doing business in France. France offers a flexible tool for exactly this situation: the shareholder current account (compte courant d’associ\u00e9), a loan that a shareholder makes to its own company, recorded in the books and repayable under conditions the parties define. Around it sit three companion mechanisms: interest within a legal ceiling, the blocked current account (compte courant bloqu\u00e9) that locks the money in for a fixed period, and the capital increase (augmentation de capital) that turns the cash into permanent equity. Each route has different tax, corporate and banking consequences, and the French tax administration knows all of them by heart. This guide explains, step by step and with the exact legal texts, how to fund your French SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, the flexible joint-stock company most foreigners choose) or SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the limited liability company with stricter statutory rules) from abroad, how to earn lawful interest, when to lock the funds in or convert them into capital, and how to get repaid and challenge any reassessment without boarding a plane. If you are setting up the structure itself, start with our complete guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder<\/a>, then return here once the Kbis (the official company identity certificate issued by the greffe, the clerk of the commercial court) is in your hands.<\/p>\n A shareholder current account is, in French law, an ordinary loan made by a shareholder to its company. The company records the wired funds as a liability toward the shareholder, uses the cash for its business, and repays it according to the agreement. The official business portal describes the mechanism in plain terms: any shareholder can leave funds at the disposal of the company through a current-account advance, and the advance may bear interest (service-public.fr guide on the shareholder current account<\/a>). For a foreign parent company or a non-resident individual holding shares in a French SAS or SARL, this is by far the fastest way to inject cash: no notary, no publication in a legal gazette, no waiting for the National Business Register (RNE, the Registre national des entreprises managed through the INPI Single Desk, or Guichet unique) to process a filing. A wire labelled “shareholder current-account advance” (apport en compte courant), a signed loan letter stating the amount, the currency, the interest rate and the repayment terms, and a matching board or management resolution are enough to move the money this week.<\/p>\n Speed does not mean informality. Three corporate-law checkpoints apply, and foreign shareholders trip over them regularly. First, the loan agreement between the company and its shareholder is a regulated agreement (convention r\u00e9glement\u00e9e): it must be disclosed and approved so that minority shareholders and later buyers can see it. In a SARL, the rule is direct: “Le g\u00e9rant ou, s’il en existe un, le commissaire aux comptes, pr\u00e9sente \u00e0 l’assembl\u00e9e ou joint aux documents communiqu\u00e9s aux associ\u00e9s en cas de consultation \u00e9crite, un rapport sur les conventions intervenues directement ou par personnes interpos\u00e9es entre la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et l’un de ses g\u00e9rants ou associ\u00e9s” (article L. 223-19 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). In practice, the manager (g\u00e9rant) or the statutory auditor (commissaire aux comptes) writes a report on the loan, the shareholders vote on it at the next meeting, and the interested shareholder does not vote. In a SAS or a public limited company, any agreement between the company and a shareholder holding more than 10 percent of the voting rights needs prior board authorisation: “Toute convention intervenant directement ou par personne interpos\u00e9e entre la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et son directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, l’un de ses directeurs g\u00e9n\u00e9raux d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s, l’un de ses administrateurs, l’un de ses actionnaires disposant d’une fraction des droits de vote sup\u00e9rieure \u00e0 10 % ou, s’il s’agit d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 actionnaire, la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 la contr\u00f4lant au sens de l’article L. 233-3 , doit \u00eatre soumise \u00e0 l’autorisation pr\u00e9alable du conseil d’administration” (article L. 225-38 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). Most foreign-owned SAS companies have simplified governance without a formal board, in which case the loan is put to a shareholders’ decision under the articles. The trap to avoid is signing the loan twice in the same pen: where the same person controls both the foreign lender and the French borrower, the approval must still be formally recorded, because a missing report is the first exhibit the tax inspector or an aggrieved minority shareholder will ask for.<\/p>\n Second, the direction of the money matters absolutely. French law allows shareholders to lend to the company, but it prohibits the reverse: the company lending to its own managers or individual shareholders. In a joint-stock company, “A peine de nullit\u00e9 du contrat, il est interdit aux administrateurs autres que les personnes morales de contracter, sous quelque forme que ce soit, des emprunts aupr\u00e8s de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, de se faire consentir par elle un d\u00e9couvert, en compte courant ou autrement, ainsi que de faire cautionner ou avaliser par elle leurs engagements envers les tiers” (article L. 225-43 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). The SARL mirror provision says exactly the same for managers and individual shareholders: “A peine de nullit\u00e9 du contrat, il est interdit aux g\u00e9rants ou associ\u00e9s autres que les personnes morales de contracter, sous quelque forme que ce soit, des emprunts aupr\u00e8s de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, de se faire consentir par elle un d\u00e9couvert, en compte courant ou autrement, ainsi que de faire cautionner ou avaliser par elle leurs engagements envers les tiers” (article L. 223-21 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). A foreign founder who is both president (pr\u00e9sident) of the SAS and its main shareholder must therefore keep two ledgers strictly apart: money the founder wires to the company is a lawful shareholder advance, while money the founder draws from the company beyond salary or approved dividends is a debtor account (compte courant d\u00e9biteur) that is void as a loan and can be reclassified as disguised remuneration or, in serious cases, as misuse of company assets. The practical discipline is simple: every transfer in either direction carries a label, a signed agreement and a book entry, and the founder never uses the company card for personal expenses while living abroad.<\/p>\n Third, the bank and the accountant need a coherent paper trail, especially for cross-border wires. French banks apply anti-money-laundering checks to incoming funds from abroad, and a 60,000 euro transfer from a Seychelles, Delaware or Dubai account with the reference “loan” and no supporting document can be frozen for weeks. Send the bank, before or with the wire, the signed current-account agreement, the shareholder resolution authorising the advance, proof of the lender’s identity and the source of funds, and keep the foreign-exchange slip showing the euro amount credited. On the accounting side, the advance sits in account 455 (associates’ current accounts) and any interest accrues separately; your French accountant (expert-comptable) will insist on this split at year-end, because interest follows a different tax regime from principal. One more banking point: a shareholder advance does not appear on the Kbis and is not published in the BODACC (Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, the official gazette where company creations, insolvencies and capital changes are announced), which keeps the financing discreet toward competitors while remaining fully visible to the tax administration through the annual accounts. Discretion toward the market, transparency toward the authorities: that is the correct posture.<\/p>\n Charging interest on the advance is lawful, and for a foreign parent it is usually desirable: interest compensates the lender and, within limits, reduces the French company’s taxable profit. French tax law starts from a broad principle: “Le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice net est \u00e9tabli sous d\u00e9duction de toutes charges, celles-ci comprenant, sous r\u00e9serve des dispositions du 5, notamment : 1\u00b0 Les frais g\u00e9n\u00e9raux de toute nature, les d\u00e9penses de personnel et de main-d’oeuvre, le loyer des immeubles dont l’entreprise est locataire” (article 39, paragraph 1 of the General Tax Code<\/a>). Interest on a shareholder loan is one of those deductible charges, but only within a ceiling that the administration publishes each quarter. The specific rule for loans from related companies states: “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” (article 212, paragraph I of the General Tax Code<\/a>), then caps the deduction: “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”. In plain English, the French company can deduct interest up to the statutory quarterly rate automatically; above that rate, it can still deduct the interest, but it must prove that an independent bank would have lent to it at that higher rate in similar conditions. For a foreign parent lending to a young French subsidiary with no credit history, that proof means keeping bank refusal letters, term sheets or group treasury benchmarks showing the market rate for comparable borrowers.<\/p>\n The excess is not merely non-deductible; it is typically reclassified as a constructive dividend, which changes the withholding analysis for a non-resident lender. Interest paid to a foreign company or individual may suffer French withholding tax (retenue \u00e0 la source) at the domestic rate unless the applicable double-tax treaty reduces it or the EU Interest and Royalties Directive exempts it for qualifying EU parents. The treaty network is generous but paper-heavy: the lender must provide a certificate of tax residence, the beneficial-ownership chain must be documented, and the French company must file the corresponding filings are the 2777 withholding return for income paid to non-residents and the annual 2065 corporate return showing the deduction. The most frequent reassessment our firm sees runs exactly like this: a foreign parent charges 8 percent on a 200,000 euro advance, the French subsidiary deducts 16,000 euros of interest, the inspector compares the rate with the published quarterly ceiling of around 5 to 6 percent, reclassifies the spread as a distribution, applies dividend withholding, and adds late-payment interest. Each step is challengeable, but only with documents prepared before the audit: the loan agreement with a rate clause referencing the statutory ceiling plus a market-rate justification, the quarterly rate printouts kept year by year, the residence certificate of the lender, and the treaty article cited in the return. Money first, paperwork at the same time: never money first and paperwork next year.<\/p>\n Thin capitalisation adds a second ceiling for heavy intra-group financing. Where a French company is largely funded by debt from related parties rather than equity, additional limitation rules (the “rabot” cap on net financial expenses and the anti-hybrid provisions) can defer or deny part of the interest deduction even at a market rate. The policy signal is clear: France accepts shareholder loans as working-capital bridges, not as permanent substitutes for equity. That is why experienced groups combine instruments: a current-account advance for the first 12 to 18 months of a subsidiary’s life, then a partial conversion into capital once the business model is proven. The conversion itself is a corporate decision with its own formalities, examined in Part II, and it resets the debt-to-equity picture that the inspector reviews. Keep in mind the exchange-rate dimension too: if the loan is denominated in dollars or pounds while the French accounts are in euros, unrealised conversion gains and losses (\u00e9carts de conversion) must be tracked at each year-end, because they affect both the accounts filed with the greffe and the taxable result. A euro-denominated advance from the start eliminates an entire category of disputes for a modest conversion cost.<\/p>\n An ordinary current-account advance is repayable on demand, which comforts the lender but worries everyone else: the French bank that is asked for an overdraft, the supplier checking the balance sheet, and the auditor assessing whether the company is a going concern. The blocked current account (compte courant bloqu\u00e9) answers that concern: the shareholder signs an undertaking not to claim repayment before a fixed date or event, typically the full repayment of a bank loan or the return to profits. Banks routinely require such subordination undertakings (conventions de blocage) before lending to a foreign-owned SME, and the undertaking is then appended to the loan file. The blocking agreement must state the duration, whether interest continues to accrue during the lock-up, and what happens at maturity: automatic release, renewal, or conversion into capital. A blocking clause buried in an email is worth little; a dated, signed undertaking, approved under the regulated-agreement procedure and communicated to the bank and the auditor, is worth a great deal. Note the trade-off with open eyes: once blocked, the funds cannot be recalled to meet a cash emergency at the foreign parent, so never block the entire advance if the group treasury may need it within the year.<\/p>\n Conversion into capital (augmentation de capital par incorporation de cr\u00e9ance) is the stronger, permanent version of the same idea: the shareholder’s loan becomes shares. The economic logic is straightforward, since each shareholder’s rights track its contributions: “Les droits de chaque associ\u00e9 dans le capital social sont proportionnels \u00e0 ses apports lors de la constitution de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 ou au cours de l’existence de celle-ci” (article 1843-2 of the Civil Code<\/a>). The procedure runs through a shareholders’ meeting, a report from the auditor or an appointed contribution appraiser (commissaire aux apports) verifying the reality of the claim, a notarial or private deed recording the new articles, and a filing on the INPI Single Desk that updates the RNE, the Kbis and the BODACC announcement. For a SAS, the articles usually let the president convene the meeting by email with a short notice period; for a SARL, the statutory notice and majority rules apply strictly. Foreign shareholders can vote by proxy or by written consultation and sign with a qualified electronic signature, which the Single Desk accepts. The filing produces a new Kbis showing the higher capital, and that new Kbis is the document banks, landlords and major customers actually read. A subsidiary that arrived in France with the legal minimum of 1 euro of capital and now shows 60,000 euros after conversion borrows, rents and hires on visibly different terms.<\/p>\n There are moments when recapitalisation stops being a choice and becomes a duty. When accumulated losses push equity below half of the share capital, French company law forces the shareholders to face the situation within months. In a SARL, “Si, du fait de pertes constat\u00e9es dans les documents comptables, les capitaux propres de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 deviennent inf\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du capital social, les associ\u00e9s d\u00e9cident, dans les quatre mois qui suivent l’approbation des comptes ayant fait appara\u00eetre cette perte s’il y a lieu \u00e0 dissolution anticip\u00e9e de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9” (article L. 223-42 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). In a joint-stock company such as a SAS, the board must convene an extraordinary meeting on the same timetable: “Si, du fait de pertes constat\u00e9es dans les documents comptables, les capitaux propres de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 deviennent inf\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du capital social, le conseil d’administration ou le directoire, selon le cas, est tenu dans les quatre mois qui suivent l’approbation des comptes ayant fait appara\u00eetre cette perte, de convoquer l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale extraordinaire \u00e0 l’effet de d\u00e9cider s’il y a lieu \u00e0 dissolution anticip\u00e9e de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9” (article L. 225-248 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). If the shareholders vote to continue, the company has until the end of the second financial year after the loss-making year to rebuild equity to at least half the capital or reduce the capital accordingly, and the resolution is published. A recent illustration shows courts applying this timetable strictly: in a dispute between shareholders of a SAS, the Caen Court of Appeal reviewed a meeting convened “en vue d’approuver les comptes des exercices clos les 31 d\u00e9cembre 2019, 31 d\u00e9cembre 2020 et 31 d\u00e9cembre 2021, et de se prononcer sur les d\u00e9cisions \u00e0 prendre dans le cadre des dispositions de l’article L 225-248 du code de commerce relatives \u00e0 la dissolution anticip\u00e9e de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e8s lors que les capitaux propres sont devenus inf\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du capital social” (CA Caen, 2nd civil chamber, 19 February 2026, RG 24\/02752, full decision<\/a>), and examined the resolution by which “l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale d\u00e9lib\u00e9rant par application de l’article L225-248 du code de commerce et apr\u00e8s examen de la situation de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 telle qu’elle ressort des comptes annuels de l’exercice clos le 31 d\u00e9cembre 2020 approuv\u00e9s par l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale ordinaire annuelle de ce jour, lesquels font appara\u00eetre que les capitaux propres de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 sont devenus inf\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du capital, d\u00e9cide la dissolution anticip\u00e9e de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, \u00e0 compter de ce jour”. For a foreign shareholder, the lesson is operational: read the draft annual accounts every spring, compute the equity-to-capital ratio before approving them, and arrive at the meeting with a recapitalisation plan (cash increase, debt-to-equity swap, or partial waiver of the current account with a return-to-better-fortune clause) rather than discovering the breach from the auditor’s letter in September.<\/p>\n The starting rule favours the lending shareholder: an open-ended current-account advance is repayable whenever the lender asks. The Paris Court of Appeal put it in a sentence worth quoting in full: “Une avance en compte courant \u00e9tant un pr\u00eat consenti \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, tout associ\u00e9 est en droit d’en exiger le remboursement \u00e0 tout moment s’il est \u00e0 dur\u00e9e ind\u00e9termin\u00e9e \u00e0 moins qu’il n’en soit dispos\u00e9 autrement par les statuts ou la convention des parties” (CA Paris, P\u00f4le 5, chamber 8, 14 April 2026, RG 24\/01215, full decision<\/a>). In that case, several shareholders of a SAS had made current-account advances to finance a project, then asked for their money back; the company objected that its own articles restricted withdrawals, and the court ordered repayment of each advance (6,700 euros, 6,700 euros, 7,140 euros and 3,660 euros) because no valid restriction on exigibility had been established when the funds were made available. Three consequences follow for a foreign lender. First, keep the advance open-ended if you may need the cash back: any blocking clause or repayment schedule in the articles or the agreement displaces the default rule, so draft restrictions narrowly and for a defined period. Second, a repayment claim does not require the lender to remain a shareholder or to attend a meeting in Paris: a formal demand letter (mise en demeure) sent by registered mail or by a commissioner of justice (commissaire de justice, the reformed office of the bailiff, or huissier) starts late-payment interest running, and court proceedings can be handled through French counsel with a power of attorney. Third, the company can only resist repayment on solid grounds: a valid blocking agreement, insolvency proceedings that freeze individual claims, or a proven abuse, such as demanding immediate repayment of 200,000 euros knowing it will force a healthy company into insolvency. Courts punish that kind of predatory recall with liability for the resulting loss, so calibrate the demand with the company’s actual cash position shown by recent bank statements.<\/p>\n Where the advance is already trapped and the company stonewalls, the enforcement track is covered step by step in our companion guide to recovering a shareholder advance from abroad<\/a>.<\/p>\n When the company refuses without grounds, the enforcement path from abroad is well trodden. Start with the formal demand giving a final deadline of 8 to 15 days, then choose the fast track: the European order for payment or the French injonction de payer (order-for-payment procedure before the commercial court) for an undisputed, documented loan, or an ordinary summons (assignation) where the company contests the amount or invokes a blocking clause. The claim file from abroad should contain the signed agreement, the SWIFT confirmations of the original wires, the ledger extract showing the outstanding balance, the corporate approvals, and the demand letter with proof of delivery. Translation needs stay modest: French courts work in French, so the one-page loan letter and the demand should exist in French originals from day one, which is another reason to draft bilingually at the outset rather than translating under time pressure. Provisional measures exist for urgent cases: a judge can authorise a protective seizure (saisie conservatoire) of the company’s bank balance while the merits are argued, provided the claim looks well founded and recovery looks threatened. None of this requires relocating: counsel appears, reports by email, and the lender follows the timetable from its home country.<\/p>\n Tax disputes follow a parallel track with their own weapons. A reassessment notice (proposition de rectification) on interest deductions or withholding arrives by post to the French company’s registered office (si\u00e8ge social), often while the foreign shareholder knows nothing; make sure the company’s mail is monitored and that the accountant forwards any brown envelope from the tax office (service des imp\u00f4ts des entreprises) within days, because reply deadlines run from receipt, typically 30 days. The response package mirrors the audit-proof file described in Part I: the quarterly statutory-rate tables for each year reassessed, the market-rate evidence, the lender’s residence certificates, the treaty provisions invoked, and the corrected computation showing the tax actually due. If the inspector maintains the charge, the ladder is a hierarchical appeal (recours hi\u00e9rarchique) to the inspector’s superior, then a claim to the administrative court (tribunal administratif), with the amounts above the collection threshold optionally secured by a payment deferral (sursis de paiement) against a guarantee. Interest paid to a treaty-protected lender, a rate aligned with the published ceiling, and a loan recorded and approved before any audit begins: that combination settles most files at the discussion stage, and it is the combination this article has been building toward. The URSSAF (the network of agencies collecting employer and personal social contributions) occasionally enters the picture where advances look like disguised salary to a working shareholder, so keep shareholder loans and employment contracts in separate folders with separate justifications.<\/p>\n Funding a French company from abroad is a legal craft with four tools and one discipline. The open shareholder advance moves cash within days and is repayable on demand unless the parties agree otherwise; interest is deductible up to the statutory ceiling and beyond it only with market-rate proof; the blocked account and the capital increase turn fragile debt into lasting equity that banks and partners respect; and repayment or litigation can be run from abroad through counsel, a formal demand and a documented file. The discipline binding all four tools together is contemporaneous paperwork: signed agreements in French, corporate approvals under the regulated-agreement rules, bank references matching the book entries, and tax evidence filed before any inspector calls. Prepare that file the day the wire leaves, review the equity-to-capital ratio every spring when the accounts close, and convert debt into capital before losses force the timetable. Do that, and the 60,000 euros wired in an afternoon becomes what it was meant to be: a growing French business with clean books, a stronger Kbis, and no unwelcome letters from the tax office.<\/p>\n Our firm advises foreign founders and companies doing business in France, in English, from company formation to shareholder loans, blocked accounts, capital increases and tax disputes. Telephone consultation: 80 EUR TTC, within 48 hours with an attorney of the firm: 06 46 60 58 22<\/a>. You can also reach us through our contact page<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" How a foreign shareholder can fund a French SAS or SARL from abroad: current-account loans, interest ceilings, blocked accounts, capital increases and repayment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16399,"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-2132133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. Send money to your French company from abroad without creating a tax or criminal risk<\/h2>\n
A. How can a foreign shareholder lend to its French company and get the paperwork right?<\/h3>\n
B. What interest can you charge, and where does the tax inspector draw the line?<\/h3>\n
II. Lock the money in or take it back while you live abroad<\/h2>\n
A. When should you block the advance or convert it into capital?<\/h3>\n
B. How do you get repaid from abroad, and how do you fight a refusal or a reassessment?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n