You are British, you own a holiday home in France or you are about to buy one, and somebody \u2014 an estate agent, a friend at the golf club, a well-meaning forum \u2014 has told you to put it in an SCI. Those three letters stand for soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re<\/i>, a French non-trading property company: a legal person you create with your family to hold the house instead of owning it directly in your own names. Since Brexit this old French recipe matters more, not less. You are now a third-country national in France, your English will no longer circulates as freely as it did, every border crossing and tax form is examined more closely, and the price of getting the structure wrong \u2014 blocked sale, surprise tax bill, children in conflict \u2014 has gone up. This guide explains, in plain English and with the exact French legal references, what a family SCI does for a British family, how to set one up and run it properly, how it is taxed while you own and when you sell, what happens to the shares on death or divorce, and how to challenge a refusal or a bill when things go wrong.<\/p>\nI. Should a British family put its French holiday home in an SCI, and how is it set up and run?<\/h2>\n
A. What does an SCI give a British family that direct joint ownership does not?<\/h3>\n
Start with the alternative, because most British buyers default to it without realising. When two or more people buy a French house directly in their own names, French law calls that indivision<\/i>, joint ownership without legal personality. Nobody chooses its rules: they apply automatically, the important decisions require everybody to agree, and the Civil Code states the principle bluntly: “Nul ne peut \u00eatre contraint \u00e0 demeurer dans l’indivision et le partage peut toujours \u00eatre provoqu\u00e9, \u00e0 moins qu’il n’y ait \u00e9t\u00e9 sursis par jugement ou convention.”<\/a> In plain terms, any co-owner can force a sale through the courts at any time. When one of you dies, your share passes automatically to your heirs, so the number of co-owners grows with each generation and each newcomer can block or force decisions. For a British couple with two children that means four decision-makers today and potentially grandchildren, spouses and ex-spouses tomorrow, all with a veto.<\/p>\n An SCI replaces that fragile arrangement with a personne morale<\/i>, a separate legal person that owns the house while the family owns the company through parts sociales<\/i>, shares in the company. The Civil Code provides that the provisions on civil companies apply to every soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile unless a special statute says otherwise<\/a>, and the SCI is the standard vehicle for holding and managing property without a commercial activity. Three practical consequences follow for a British family. First, the written statuts<\/i>, the articles of the company, decide who can join, who manages and how votes are counted, instead of the default unanimity of joint ownership. Second, a g\u00e9rant<\/i>, a manager who can be one of the parents, runs day-to-day matters \u2014 paying the taxe fonci\u00e8re<\/i> (the French land tax on property owners), instructing the plumber, signing the insurance \u2014 without convening the whole family for every signature. The Code states that the company is managed by one or more persons, whether associates or not, appointed by the articles, by a separate deed or by a decision of the associates<\/a>. Third, the company survives changes in the family: on the death of a shareholder, “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 n’est pas dissoute par le d\u00e9c\u00e8s d’un associ\u00e9, mais continue avec ses h\u00e9ritiers ou l\u00e9gataires, sauf \u00e0 pr\u00e9voir dans les statuts qu’ils doivent \u00eatre agr\u00e9\u00e9s par les associ\u00e9s.”<\/a> That approval clause, the agr\u00e9ment<\/i>, lets the surviving family accept or refuse a newcomer such as a new partner, with a buyout procedure as the safety valve.<\/p>\n British families typically use four further refinements, each of which must be written into the articles from the start. The d\u00e9membrement<\/i> of shares splits ownership into usufruit<\/i>, the lifetime right to use the house and take any income, and nue-propri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/i>, the bare ownership that becomes full ownership when the usufruct ends. Parents commonly keep the usufruct of all the shares and give the bare ownership to the children, keeping control of the house while moving value to the next generation within the gift allowances. Gifts of shares, rather than gifts of bricks, allow progressive transfers as children grow up, and French notarial practice recognises that shares in a family company are usually worth less than the underlying property divided by the number of shares, a discount known as d\u00e9cote<\/i>, which must be reasoned and documented because the tax office challenges inflated discounts. Unmarried British couples use the SCI with crossed usufruct arrangements to protect the survivor, a point developed in our guide to buying a French house outside marriage<\/a>. And where the parents are married, the interaction between the SCI and the matrimonial property regime decides who really owns the shares on divorce or death, as explained in our guide to matrimonial regimes for British couples living in France<\/a>.<\/p>\n Three honest warnings complete the picture. An SCI costs money to create and run: notaire or solicitor fees for the articles, registration and publication costs, an accountant, annual meetings and tax returns every year even if the house sits empty all winter. The protection against creditors is real but limited: the associates are liable for the company’s debts indefinitely and in proportion to their holdings, though only after the creditors have first pursued the company itself, as article 1857 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides \u2014 and in practice French banks still ask the parents to sign personal guarantees. Finally, an SCI is not a tax shelter. By default it is tax-transparent, meaning the family pays the tax, not the company: “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.”<\/a> The detailed tax mechanics, including the furnished-letting trap that pushes many British-owned SCIs into corporation tax by accident, are covered in Part II below.<\/p>\n Forming the SCI is straightforward but every step is mandatory, and British families most often stumble on the steps that have no equivalent in English company practice. You need at least two associates: the two parents, a parent and an adult child, or the whole family. Children can hold shares, including minors through their legal representatives, which is precisely how families build the gift strategy over time. The articles must be in writing \u2014 “Les statuts doivent \u00eatre \u00e9tablis par \u00e9crit.”<\/a> \u2014 and they must cover the contributions of each associate, the form, purpose, name, registered office, capital, and duration of the company. Do not treat this as a formality. The clauses that matter most for a British family are the company’s purpose (objet social<\/i>), which must stay strictly civil \u2014 buying, holding and letting unfurnished property \u2014 the approval clause for incoming shareholders, the rules for appointing and removing the manager, the voting majorities, and what happens on death, divorce or withdrawal. A template downloaded from the internet and signed without advice is the single most expensive saving in this whole exercise: have the articles drafted or at least reviewed by a French notaire (notaire<\/i>, a public official qualified in French law who handles conveyancing, succession and company matters) or a solicitor practising French law. The British government’s own buying guide makes the same point from the London end: the notaire is a public official qualified in the French legal system, able to advise on property, family and succession law<\/a>, and Paris keeps a public list of English-speaking French lawyers for independent advice before you sign.<\/p>\n Money can enter the company in two ways, and the choice has lasting consequences. A contribution (apport<\/i>) of cash in exchange for shares increases the capital; a contribution of the house itself transfers ownership to the company and requires a notaire’s deed with registration formalities and duty. Most British families either form the SCI first and let it buy the house, or contribute cash and leave the existing ownership untouched until a later reorganisation. Alongside capital, families routinely use shareholder current accounts (comptes courants d’associ\u00e9s<\/i>), which are simply loans the parents make to the company to fund the purchase or the works, repayable over time and capable of bearing interest. Document every advance in writing, with amount, interest and repayment terms, because undocumented family money is recharacterised by the tax office at the worst possible moment, and because on death or divorce the loan is an asset of the lender’s estate quite distinct from the shares.<\/p>\n Registration follows a fixed sequence. Sign the articles, publish a formation notice in a legal announcements paper (journal d’annonces l\u00e9gales<\/i>), file the company with the single business desk (guichet unique<\/i>, operated by the INPI) for entry in the trade and companies register, and obtain the SIREN number that identifies the company to the administration. The official service-public guide to the SCI walks through each filing step and confirms the essentials of running the vehicle afterwards: by default the SCI falls under personal income tax, with each associate taxed on their share of the profits in proportion to their holding<\/a>, the manager must keep accounts and report to the associates in writing at least once a year, and the associates answer for losses while creditors may pursue their personal assets only under the subsidiary conditions recalled above. Open a dedicated company bank account before the first euro moves, keep the family money and the company money strictly separate, and hold a real annual meeting with written minutes even when all the associates live under the same roof in Surrey: those minutes are the first document a judge or a tax inspector asks for.<\/p>\n Running the SCI year after year is where British owners most often drift. The manager pays the bills, collects any rent, prepares the accounts and convenes the annual meeting; the associates approve the accounts, decide on works, and vote on any sale or borrowing that exceeds the manager’s authority under the articles. The company files its own annual tax return, and each associate declares their share of any rental profit in France and reports it again to HM Revenue and Customs in Britain, with double tax relieved under the France-United Kingdom treaty mechanism. Keep every invoice, bank statement and meeting minute for as long as you own the shares and beyond: limitation periods in French tax and civil matters are counted in years, and the document you threw away is always the one you needed. If the family stops using the house, do not simply abandon the company \u2014 an SCI with no activity still owes filings, and a dormant company with debts is a lawsuit waiting for an heir.<\/p>\n While the family simply owns and enjoys the house, the default transparent SCI pays no tax itself: each associate is taxed personally on their slice of the company’s rental profit, whether the money is distributed or kept in the company. French notarial guidance confirms the point plainly: where the associates have kept the income-tax regime, they must declare the profits even if nothing was paid out. For a British family letting the house unfurnished, each associate’s share is rental income taxable in France, with French social charges on top at the rate matching the associate’s social-security position \u2014 a point to have checked individually, because British residents covered by the coordination rules and British residents outside them do not pay the same rate. Electing for corporation tax (imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s<\/i>) changes everything: the company pays tax on its profit, later distributions are taxed again in the associates’ hands as dividends, and reversing the election is tightly time-limited, so treat the choice as effectively permanent and model both routes with an accountant before signing anything.<\/p>\n The classic British trap is the furnished holiday let. Renting the house furnished \u2014 the standard g\u00eete or short-stay model \u2014 is a commercial activity in French tax law, and a transparent SCI that earns too much commercial income is pushed into corporation tax by operation of law. Notarial guidance warns that the corporation-tax regime becomes compulsory where the SCI lets furnished accommodation<\/a>. Before listing the house on a holiday platform, have your accountant measure the expected furnished receipts against the tolerance the administration allows and, if needed, hold the furnished activity in a separate structure rather than contaminating the family SCI. Families that ignore this discover the problem years later, when the tax office reclassifies the company retroactively and thedividend distributions they thought were tax-free turn out to be taxable twice.<\/p>\n Selling shares in the SCI is the second pressure point. Shares cannot be sold freely to an outsider: “Les parts sociales ne peuvent \u00eatre c\u00e9d\u00e9es qu’avec l’agr\u00e9ment de tous les associ\u00e9s.”<\/a> The articles may soften that unanimity to a majority or to the manager’s consent, and unless the articles say otherwise, sales to your own parents or children are exempt from approval \u2014 but the starting rule is unanimity, and the sale plan must be formally notified to the company and to every associate. On the tax side, a family SCI holding a single French house is a company with a preponderance of French real estate (personne morale \u00e0 pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rance immobili\u00e8re<\/i>), so the buyer pays registration duty at 5 percent of the price with no allowance, as article 726 of the General Tax Code<\/a> provides. Where the deed is signed abroad, the transfer must additionally be recorded by a French notaire within one month. Note the contrast with selling the house itself out of a transparent SCI: the capital gain is then computed under the property gains regime of article 150 U<\/a>, where the taxable gain shrinks the longer the company has owned the property and full exemption arrives after a long holding period \u2014 your notaire applies the scale in force on the sale date, so ask for the computation before agreeing the price, not after signing.<\/p>\n British-resident sellers face one extra layer. France taxes gains on French land in the hands of non-residents through a withholding levy collected at the signing of the deed, and article 244 bis A of the General Tax Code<\/a> requires a seller outside the European Union and the European Economic Area to act through an accredited French tax representative (repr\u00e9sentant fiscal<\/i>), a professional who guarantees payment of the levy. Since Brexit, a seller living in Britain needs that representative; the notaire will refuse to complete without one. The levy is then creditable in Britain under the treaty machinery, which is why the file must contain both the French computation and the British return. Our guide to selling a former French home after leaving France<\/a> walks through the exemption windows, the 150,000-euro trap and the treaty tail that returning Britons most often miss, and the same logic applies when the seller is a family SCI rather than an individual. If the bill looks wrong \u2014 wrong basis, missed allowance, missed treaty credit \u2014 the remedy is a formal claim to the tax office (r\u00e9clamation contentieuse<\/i>) followed, if rejected, by an appeal to the competent court, administrative or civil depending on the levy. Deadlines run from the notice and are strict, so diary them the day the envelope arrives and keep proof of every filing.<\/p>\n On death, the SCI does what joint ownership cannot: it continues. The shares pass to the heirs or legatees, with the approval clause doing the filtering the family designed years earlier. But two tax and succession realities cut across that smooth company-law picture. First, French inheritance tax looks through the company: shares in a property-rich company holding French land count as French situated assets, since the Code taxes movable and immovable property situated in France whether held directly or indirectly<\/a>. Putting the house in an SCI therefore never moves it out of the French tax net, and the 1963 Franco-British succession treaty confirms that French land is taxed in France \u2014 the detailed treaty mechanics are set out in our guide to what happens when a British owner dies holding a French house<\/a>. Second, the forced heirship rules (r\u00e9serve h\u00e9ritaire<\/i>) protect children regardless of the wrapper: “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.”<\/a> Gifts of shares and favourable wills are measured against those fractions, and where the applicable foreign law offers children no equivalent protection, the Code allows them a compensatory levy on French assets. An English choice of law in the will \u2014 the professio juris<\/i> permitted by article 22 of the European Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 650\/2012), which France applies even though the United Kingdom never took part in it \u2014 organises which law governs the estate, but it does not erase French tax on the French house and it does not guarantee that a disinherited child has no remedy against French assets. Write the will, the articles and the gifts as one consistent package, and review that package every time the family changes.<\/p>\n Where the deceased lived matters as much as what the will says, and here recent case law helps British families directly. In a dispute between children and a surviving spouse living in London over a French estate, the First Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation held on 21 September 2022 (appeal No. 19-15.438) that “lorsque la r\u00e9sidence habituelle du d\u00e9funt au moment du d\u00e9c\u00e8s n’est pas situ\u00e9e dans un \u00c9tat membre, les juridictions de l’\u00c9tat membre dans lequel sont situ\u00e9s des biens successoraux sont n\u00e9anmoins comp\u00e9tentes pour statuer sur l’ensemble de la succession dans la mesure o\u00f9 le d\u00e9funt poss\u00e9dait la nationalit\u00e9 de cet \u00c9tat membre au moment du d\u00e9c\u00e8s.”<\/a> The same judgment recalls that, following the Court of Justice’s ruling of 7 April 2022 (case C-645\/20), a court seised under the general jurisdiction rule must raise of its own motion its fallback jurisdiction where it finds the general rule does not give it jurisdiction<\/a>. In practical terms, French courts have fallback routes wherever French property is involved, and they must examine those routes without waiting to be asked \u2014 a point worth raising expressly whenever an opponent argues that a British domicile takes the whole file to England. The surviving spouse is separately protected inside the estate: “L’attribution pr\u00e9f\u00e9rentielle vis\u00e9e au 1\u00b0 de l’article 831-2 est de droit pour le conjoint survivant.”<\/a> That preferential allotment of the family home is a right for the widow or widower, though it can still be refused on the facts, as the next case shows.<\/p>\n Divorce and family quarrels are the other great test of the SCI, and the structure usually passes it better than joint ownership \u2014 provided the articles anticipated the exit. Any associate may leave, in whole or in part, on the terms set by the articles or, failing that, with the unanimous consent of the others: “Sans pr\u00e9judice des droits des tiers, un associ\u00e9 peut se retirer totalement ou partiellement de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues par les statuts ou, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut, apr\u00e8s autorisation donn\u00e9e par une d\u00e9cision unanime des autres associ\u00e9s.”<\/a> The same article adds that withdrawal can be authorised by a court for good cause (justes motifs<\/i>), and the withdrawing associate is entitled to the value of their rights, fixed by agreement or, failing agreement, under article 1843-4<\/a>: in case of dispute the value is set by an expert appointed by the parties or, failing agreement, by the president of the court ruling in expedited proceedings with no appeal<\/a>. The Cour de cassation enforces that machinery strictly: in the Marina Airport litigation, the Commercial Chamber recorded on 15 March 2017 (appeal No. 15-17.271) that the withdrawing associate had been authorised to leave the company by a judgment which appointed an expert on the basis of article 1843-4 of the Civil Code<\/a>, and the courts then held the company to the expert’s valuation. The lesson for a British shareholder in dispute is concrete: propose the exit in writing under the articles, agree an expert if you can, and if you cannot, ask the president of the local tribunal judiciaire<\/i> (the French civil court of first instance) to appoint one \u2014 the valuation that comes back binds the company.<\/p>\n Where coexistence itself has broken down, the law provides the ultimate exit: dissolution by the court. The company comes to an end through early dissolution ordered by the court at the request of an associate for good cause<\/a>, and lasting deadlock between associates is the textbook example. On 9 May 2012 (appeal No. 11-13.150), the Third Civil Chamber approved the dissolution of a family SCI whose two equal associates no longer spoke, holding that the breakdown of the personal bond between the associates that lay behind the company project, the equal split of the capital, the dispute over occupation of the company’s flat and their disagreement, which nothing allowed to be blamed on one of them alone, had paralysed the operation of the company<\/a>. The same judgment refused the former partner’s request for preferential allotment of the flat on the facts of that case \u2014 a reminder that the spouse’s right recalled above is strong but not automatic, and that the partner who wants the house must show genuine housing need and the means to pay the balancing sum (soulte<\/i>). After dissolution, the assets are shared under article 1844-9<\/a>, which applies the succession-partition rules between associates, including preferential allotment. Dissolution destroys the wrapper to save the value inside; use it last, after the negotiated buyout and the court-approved withdrawal have failed.<\/p>\n Fight back in the right order. If the family refuses your buyer, answer that French company law does not allow a bare veto: put the remaining associates on formal notice to buy the shares or procure a buyer, and propose the article 1843-4 expert mechanism immediately. If the manager blocks accounts or meetings, demand the written annual report the law requires and, failing that, ask the court for a provisional administrator. If the tax office reassesses the SCI or you personally, file the formal claim at once and calendar the appeal; never let a French tax notice go unanswered while you ask London for a second opinion. And if the company is truly deadlocked, petition for dissolution rather than starving it of funds, because the associate who engineers the paralysis is the one the court blames. Every one of these steps depends on articles that were well drafted years before the dispute \u2014 which is why the cheapest dispute lawyer is the notaire who drafts the approval, withdrawal and death clauses properly on day one.<\/p>\n For a British family with a French holiday home, the SCI remains the most flexible wrapper French law offers: it chooses its members, survives death, stages gifts to children, and provides orderly exits where joint ownership offers only a court-ordered sale. But it is a company, not a shortcut. Transparent by default and taxable on every gain, intolerant of furnished lets smuggled into a civil purpose, strict on approvals and filings, and powerless against French inheritance tax and forced heirship on its own, it rewards families who draft carefully, meet annually, declare honestly and review the package at each birth, marriage, divorce and death. Do that, and the house in the Dordogne or the Var stays what it should be \u2014 a family asset that passes quietly down the generations instead of a file that divides them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" British family with a French holiday home? How an SCI works, what it costs in tax, what happens on death or divorce, and how to challenge a refusal or a bill.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16398,"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-2142061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nB. How do you create and run the SCI without tripping over French formalities?<\/h3>\n
II. What tax and succession traps must a British family in an SCI watch for, and how do you challenge a refusal or a bill?<\/h2>\n
A. How is the SCI taxed while you own and when you sell shares or the house?<\/h3>\n
B. What happens to the SCI shares on death or divorce, and how do you get out or fight back?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n