You own a house in France, you live in England, and your children are grown up. Rather than leaving the house to be sorted out after your death, you would like to give it to them now, while you can still organise matters, perhaps keeping the right to live in it for the rest of your days. Under English law that instinct is easy to satisfy: an adult with capacity can generally give away whatever they like, to whichever child they like, and in England no forced share constrains them. In France the same project runs into three walls that surprise almost every British family. First, the gift itself is valid only if it follows a strict French form: a private deed signed in England, even properly witnessed, does not transfer a French house. Second, the gift is not forgotten at your death. It is fictitiously added back to your estate to check whether each child’s minimum forced share, the r\u00e9serve h\u00e9r\u00e9ditaire, has been respected, and a child who loses out can sue for reduction years later. Third, French gift tax applies to the French house even when the donor lives in England and the children live in England, and the tax office has sharp tools \u2014 fictitious-gift and abuse-of-law challenges \u2014 against arrangements that look like gifts but behave like something else.<\/p>\n
This guide answers the two questions British parents actually ask, in the order they arise: first, how to give the house now in a form France recognises, and what the forced share means for that gift; second, what gift tax the children will owe, and how to challenge the bill when the administration disputes the gift. Each section gives the exact statutory wording, what the courts have made of it, and the practical steps that protect the family, including the Paris practice points. The choice of which national law governs your succession as a whole \u2014 English or French \u2014 is a separate decision explained in our guide to choosing English law for a French house<\/a>, and what happens when no will exists at all is covered in our guide to British intestacy in France<\/a>.<\/p>\n French law starts from a blunt proposition. Article 893 of the Civil Code provides: “La lib\u00e9ralit\u00e9 est l’acte par lequel une personne dispose \u00e0 titre gratuit de tout ou partie de ses biens ou de ses droits au profit d’une autre personne. Il ne peut \u00eatre fait de lib\u00e9ralit\u00e9 que par donation entre vifs ou par testament.” (Article 893, Code civil<\/a>). There are only two lawful channels for giving: the lifetime gift, the donation entre vifs, and the will. A lifetime gift is defined by Article 894: “La donation entre vifs est un acte par lequel le donateur se d\u00e9pouille actuellement et irr\u00e9vocablement de la chose donn\u00e9e en faveur du donataire qui l’accepte.” (Article 894, Code civil<\/a>). Three words carry the whole mechanism: the donor must strip themselves of the property immediately and irrevocably, and the donee must accept. A promise to give later, a gift the donor can take back, or an arrangement where the donor quietly keeps the proceeds, is not a donation at all in French eyes \u2014 a point the tax courts enforce ruthlessly, as Section II shows.<\/p>\n The second shock is form. Article 931 of the Civil Code states: “Tous actes portant donation entre vifs seront pass\u00e9s devant notaires dans la forme ordinaire des contrats ; et il en restera minute, sous peine de nullit\u00e9.” (Article 931, Code civil<\/a>). Every lifetime gift must be received by a notaire (a French public officer, the notaire, who authenticates the deed and keeps the original, the minute), on pain of nullity. An English deed of gift, a solicitor’s letter, or a family agreement signed around a kitchen table in Kent transfers nothing in France, even if everyone involved agrees. For a house, the French notaire draws up the acte de donation, verifies title, calculates the tax, collects it, and handles the land-registration formalities and the land-registration tax (taxe de publicit\u00e9 fonci\u00e8re) that the official service-public guidance confirms is payable when the gift includes a property (service-public.fr, donation-partage guidance<\/a>). The notaire’s fees are proportionate to the value of the full ownership given. In practice, a British donor who still lives in England signs before a French notaire \u2014 many Paris practices are used to British clients and work with a sworn translator \u2014 or through a French power of attorney (procuration authentique) received by a notaire. What cannot work is bypassing the notaire altogether.<\/p>\n Where there are several children, the instrument to reach for is usually the donation-partage, the gift-partition. Article 1075 of the Civil Code provides: “Toute personne peut faire, entre ses h\u00e9ritiers pr\u00e9somptifs, la distribution et le partage de ses biens et de ses droits. Cet acte peut se faire sous forme de donation-partage ou de testament-partage.” (Article 1075, Code civil<\/a>). Instead of giving the whole house to the children jointly \u2014 which leaves them co-owners in indivision, the French form of undivided co-ownership that generates most family litigation \u2014 the parent divides the property or the estate between them in the deed itself. The official guidance describes the same device as lifetime giving and distribution among presumed heirs (service-public.fr, donation-partage guidance<\/a>). Each child receives defined assets, values are fixed at the date of the deed so that later rises in the property market do not reopen the quarrel, and each share is imputed against that child’s forced share unless the deed expressly states the gift is made hors part, outside the share \u2014 Article 1077 provides: “Les biens re\u00e7us \u00e0 titre de partage anticip\u00e9 par un h\u00e9ritier r\u00e9servataire pr\u00e9somptif s’imputent sur sa part de r\u00e9serve, \u00e0 moins qu’ils n’aient \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9s express\u00e9ment hors part.” (Article 1077, Code civil<\/a>). One further condition matters: the gift-partition must be accepted by at least one beneficiary to bind the others, and minors accept through their legal representatives. A donation-partage can also be made across generations to include grandchildren, and if there are no children it can benefit other presumed heirs, but each of those variants has its own conditions that the notaire must check.<\/p>\n Three practical consequences follow for British families. First, budget for the notaire from the start: fees, registration duty collected on the deed, and land-registration tax are part of the cost of giving, not an afterthought. Second, decide in the deed whether each allotment counts against the child’s share or is expressly made outside it, because that single clause shapes every later dispute. Third, keep the deed and its valuation evidence: the values stated will be re-examined at your death when the forced share is computed, and a file that shows how the house was valued protects the donees.<\/p>\n The deepest difference with English law is the r\u00e9serve h\u00e9r\u00e9ditaire, the forced share. Where English law gives the testator near-total freedom, French law reserves a fraction of the estate to the children, and no lifetime gift escapes that control. Article 913 of the Civil Code sets the 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.” (Article 913, Code civil<\/a>). With one child, half the estate is reserved and half freely disposable; with two children, two-thirds reserved; with three or more, three-quarters. The official guidance gives the same warning in plain terms: reserving heirs cannot be shut out and must receive their minimum share (service-public.fr, donation-partage guidance<\/a>). A British parent who gives the French house to one child and nothing to the other has not disinherited the other child under French law. They have created a future lawsuit.<\/p>\n The mechanism is the fictitious reunion, the r\u00e9union fictive. Article 922 of the Civil Code explains: “Les biens dont il a \u00e9t\u00e9 dispos\u00e9 par donation entre vifs sont fictivement r\u00e9unis \u00e0 cette masse, d’apr\u00e8s leur \u00e9tat \u00e0 l’\u00e9poque de la donation et leur valeur \u00e0 l’ouverture de la succession” \u2014 gifts are notionally added back to the assets existing at death, judged by their condition at the date of the gift and their value at the date of death \u2014 and “On calcule sur tous ces biens, eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 la qualit\u00e9 des h\u00e9ritiers qu’il laisse, quelle est la quotit\u00e9 dont le d\u00e9funt a pu disposer.” (Article 922, Code civil<\/a>). Take a concrete case. A widow with two children gives her Dordogne house, then worth 300,000 euros, to her daughter, keeping nothing else of substance. At her death the house is worth 450,000 euros and 50,000 euros of other assets remain. The fictitious mass is 500,000 euros; with two children the freely disposable share is one-third, about 166,667 euros; the daughter has received 450,000 euros worth, so the excess of roughly 283,333 euros over the disposable share plus her own reserved portion must be compensated to her brother through the action en r\u00e9duction, the court action that claws back excessive gifts. Gifts made through a donation-partage with values fixed in the deed are sheltered from this revaluation to a large extent, which is precisely why the deed matters more than the handshake.<\/p>\n Only the protected persons can sue. Article 921 of the Civil Code provides: “La r\u00e9duction des dispositions entre vifs ne pourra \u00eatre demand\u00e9e que par ceux au profit desquels la loi fait la r\u00e9serve, par leurs h\u00e9ritiers ou ayants cause : les donataires, les l\u00e9gataires, ni les cr\u00e9anciers du d\u00e9funt ne pourront demander cette r\u00e9duction, ni en profiter.” (Article 921, Code civil<\/a>). Siblings, donees, legatees and creditors have no standing; the disinherited child and their own heirs do. Time limits are strict, and the same article fixes them: “Le d\u00e9lai de prescription de l’action en r\u00e9duction est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 cinq ans \u00e0 compter de l’ouverture de la succession, ou \u00e0 deux ans \u00e0 compter du jour o\u00f9 les h\u00e9ritiers ont eu connaissance de l’atteinte port\u00e9e \u00e0 leur r\u00e9serve, sans jamais pouvoir exc\u00e9der dix ans \u00e0 compter du d\u00e9c\u00e8s.” (Article 921, Code civil<\/a>). Five years from the opening of the succession, or two years from the day the heirs learned of the infringement, with an absolute ceiling of ten years from the death. The Cour de cassation applied exactly this scheme on 10 December 2025, recalling in the same terms that “le d\u00e9lai de prescription de l’action en r\u00e9duction est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 cinq ans \u00e0 compter de l’ouverture de la succession, ou \u00e0 deux ans \u00e0 compter du jour o\u00f9 les h\u00e9ritiers ont eu connaissance de l’atteinte port\u00e9e \u00e0 leur r\u00e9serve, sans jamais pouvoir exc\u00e9der dix ans \u00e0 compter du d\u00e9c\u00e8s” and adding that “la demande en justice, m\u00eame en r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9, interrompt le d\u00e9lai de prescription et la prescription est suspendue lorsque le juge accueille une demande de mesure d’instruction pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e avant tout proc\u00e8s” (Cass. 1re, 10 Dec. 2025, No 23-20.674<\/a>). In that case a sister who had obtained an expert valuation of the estate in summary proceedings (r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9) in 2010 was entitled to have the appeal court examine whether her 2010 writ had interrupted the five-year period and whether the period had then been suspended until the expert reported in 2011, instead of being thrown out as out of time. For British families the lesson is double-edged: a child who suspects they were short-changed should move early and can use a court-ordered valuation to stop the clock, while donees should never assume that five quiet years after the funeral mean safety, because the two-year knowledge window can reopen the matter. The same reform that set these limits also requires the notaire settling the estate, when a forced share looks threatened, to warn each affected heir individually of their right to seek reduction.<\/p>\n Families who want certainty in the donor’s lifetime have one tailor-made tool: the advance waiver of the reduction action, the renonciation anticip\u00e9e \u00e0 l’action en r\u00e9duction, known as the RAAR. Article 929 of the Civil Code provides: “Tout h\u00e9ritier r\u00e9servataire pr\u00e9somptif peut renoncer \u00e0 exercer une action en r\u00e9duction dans une succession non ouverte. Cette renonciation doit \u00eatre faite au profit d’une ou de plusieurs personnes d\u00e9termin\u00e9es.” (Article 929, Code civil<\/a>). A child can waive, before the succession opens, any future reduction claim, but only in favour of named persons \u2014 typically the sibling who receives the house. The formalities are deliberately heavy. Article 930 requires: “La renonciation est \u00e9tablie par acte authentique sp\u00e9cifique re\u00e7u par deux notaires. Elle est sign\u00e9e s\u00e9par\u00e9ment par chaque renon\u00e7ant en pr\u00e9sence des seuls notaires.” and warns that “La renonciation est nulle lorsqu’elle n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tablie dans les conditions fix\u00e9es au pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent alin\u00e9a” (Article 930, Code civil<\/a>). Two notaires, a dedicated deed, separate signatures with only the notaires present, and nullity for non-compliance; consent obtained by error, fraud or duress also voids it. In a British family where one child takes the French house and the other takes English assets of equivalent value, a RAAR signed by the second child before two notaires is the instrument that lets everyone sleep. It must be explained, separate, and genuine \u2014 a signature extracted at the notaire’s waiting room without advice is exactly what the nullity sanction targets.<\/p>\n Finally, a warning about disguised gifts. Some parents, advised that a sale avoids gift formalities, sell the house to one child at an undervalue, sometimes with the price recorded as paid outside the notaire’s sight. French courts treat a sale at a derisory price as a donation d\u00e9guis\u00e9e, a disguised gift, fully subject to reunion and reduction. But judges must prove it properly. On 24 January 2018 the Cour de cassation quashed an appeal ruling that had found a disguised gift of land, holding that “sans constater l’absence de paiement du prix \u00e0 la date de la vente authentique du 2 mars 1981, la cour d’appel n’a pas donn\u00e9 de base l\u00e9gale \u00e0 sa d\u00e9cision” (Cass. 1re, 24 Jan. 2018, No 17-13.017<\/a>). The court of appeal had relied on the price being paid out of the notaire’s sight and on the seller’s later written statement that he never received it, without establishing that the price was actually unpaid when the authentic sale was signed \u2014 and that gap was fatal. The same decision recalls that where a gift passes through a family company, the amount brought back into account follows the heir’s share of the capital: “en cas de donation faite par le d\u00e9funt \u00e0 l’h\u00e9ritier par interposition d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 dont ce dernier est associ\u00e9, le rapport est d\u00fb \u00e0 la succession en proportion du capital qu’il d\u00e9tient” (Cass. 1re, 24 Jan. 2018, No 17-13.017<\/a>). For British owners of French property held through a soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re, the family SCI, that sentence matters: giving SCI shares to one child is not a way around the forced share, and our guide to the British family SCI<\/a> explains the vehicle in detail. The honest route is the open notarial gift, possibly unequal and expressly made outside the share, paired where needed with a RAAR \u2014 not a sham sale.<\/p>\n The most common British misunderstanding is territorial: surely, if the donor is domiciled in England and the children live in England, the French house can be given under English tax rules. It cannot. Article 750 ter of the General Tax Code draws the net widely: “Les biens meubles et immeubles, que ces derniers soient poss\u00e9d\u00e9s directement ou indirectement, situ\u00e9s en France” \u2014 and, where the donor is not French tax-resident, “lorsque le donateur ou le d\u00e9funt n’a pas son domicile fiscal en France au sens de l’article pr\u00e9cit\u00e9” remain subject to French gratuitous-transfer duties (Article 750 ter, General Tax Code<\/a>). A French house is taxable in France on a gift even where nobody in the family is French tax-resident, and the same article reaches houses held indirectly \u2014 through an SCI \u2014 where the donor with close family holds more than half the shares. Domicile in England changes nothing for the French house itself.<\/p>\n The computation then follows three steps. First, the scale. Article 777 provides: “Les droits de mutation \u00e0 titre gratuit sont fix\u00e9s aux taux indiqu\u00e9s dans les tableaux ci-apr\u00e8s, pour la part nette revenant \u00e0 chaque ayant droit” (Article 777, General Tax Code<\/a>), with the direct-line table running from 5 per cent on the first 8,072 euros through 10, 15 and 20 per cent bands up to 45 per cent above 1,805,677 euros. Second, the allowance. Article 779 grants “un abattement de 100 000 \u20ac sur la part de chacun des ascendants et sur la part de chacun des enfants vivants ou repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par suite de pr\u00e9d\u00e9c\u00e8s ou de renonciation” (Article 779, General Tax Code<\/a>) \u2014 100,000 euros off each child’s share, per parent giving. Third, the memory of past gifts. Article 784 requires the deed to declare earlier gifts and provides: “La perception est effectu\u00e9e en ajoutant \u00e0 la valeur des biens compris dans la donation ou la d\u00e9claration de succession celle des biens qui ont fait l’objet de donations ant\u00e9rieures, \u00e0 l’exception de celles pass\u00e9es depuis plus de quinze ans” (Article 784, General Tax Code<\/a>). Gifts made within the last fifteen years are added back to push the new gift into higher bands; gifts older than fifteen years drop out of the computation.<\/p>\n A worked example makes this concrete. A father gives a 400,000-euro house outright, half to each of his two children. Each share is 200,000 euros; minus the 100,000-euro allowance, 100,000 euros is taxable per child. Applying the scale \u2014 5 per cent to 8,072 euros (403.60 euros), 10 per cent on the slice to 12,109 euros (403.70 euros), 15 per cent on the slice to 15,932 euros (573.45 euros), 20 per cent on the remaining 84,068 euros (16,813.60 euros) \u2014 each child owes about 18,194 euros in gift duty, before notaire fees and land-registration tax. Had the father given 100,000 euros fifteen years earlier, that earlier sum would be added back and part of the new gift would be taxed at higher marginal rates. Figures of this kind must be recomputed on the values and allowances in force on the date of the deed, which is why the notaire’s tax computation before signature is indispensable, not optional.<\/p>\n One classic technique softens the bill while protecting the parent: splitting ownership between a life interest and the bare title. The parent keeps the usufruit, the right to live in the house or take its rents, and gives away only the nue-propri\u00e9t\u00e9, the bare ownership that becomes full ownership automatically when the usufruit ends. Article 669 of the General Tax Code values each part by statute: “la valeur de la nue-propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et de l’usufruit est d\u00e9termin\u00e9e par une quotit\u00e9 de la valeur de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8re, conform\u00e9ment au bar\u00e8me ci-apr\u00e8s” (Article 669, General Tax Code<\/a>), from 90 per cent usufruit for the youngest holders down to 10 per cent past age 91. A 68-year-old parent falls in the band where the usufruit counts for 40 per cent and the bare ownership for 60 per cent. Applied to the same 400,000-euro house given to two children with the parent keeping the life interest, only 240,000 euros of bare ownership is transferred \u2014 120,000 euros per child, 20,000 euros taxable each after the allowance. The parent stays in the house for life, the children pay a fraction of the outright-gift duty, and at the parent’s death the life interest simply extinguishes with no further transfer duty on that extinction. The trade-off must be understood: the children cannot sell the house over the parent’s head, and the parent cannot sell without them.<\/p>\n Two compliance points close this picture. Notarial gift deeds must be registered quickly: Article 635 of the General Tax Code provides that “Doivent \u00eatre enregistr\u00e9s dans le d\u00e9lai d’un mois \u00e0 compter de leur date”, a category that expressly includes notarial deeds (Article 635, General Tax Code<\/a>). In practice the notaire handles registration and pays the duties from funds provided at signature; the one-month rule is a reason to have financing ready, not a trap for the unwary. And the English side must not be forgotten. British tax law has its own clock: gifts made within seven years of death may attract tax depending on the recipient, the value and the timing, and selling an asset to a child below market value counts as a gift of the difference (GOV.UK, rules on giving gifts<\/a>). A British-domiciled parent’s gift of a French house can therefore attract French gift tax now and remain within the scope of UK inheritance tax if death follows within seven years, with each country applying its own reliefs. The family needs advice on both sides before the deed, not after the assessment.<\/p>\n The administration has two heavy weapons against gifts it distrusts, and British families meet both. The first is recharacterisation: the gift was fictitious, a paper transfer after which the donor carried on as before. The Conseil d’\u00c9tat set the test on 5 February 2018: “L’administration peut \u00e9carter sur le fondement de l’article L. 64 du livre des proc\u00e9dures fiscales comme ne lui \u00e9tant pas opposable un acte de donation qui ne se traduit pas par un d\u00e9pouillement imm\u00e9diat et irr\u00e9vocable de son auteur et rev\u00eat, d\u00e8s lors, un caract\u00e8re fictif. Il en va notamment ainsi lorsque le donateur appr\u00e9hende, \u00e0 la suite de la donation, tout ou partie du produit de la cession de la chose pr\u00e9tendument donn\u00e9e.” (CE, 5 Feb. 2018, No 409718<\/a>). In that case a father had given company shares to his two-year-old daughter and the shares were sold three weeks later, with over 82 per cent of the 256,981.98-euro price ending up on accounts the father controlled under loan notes the court found unregistered and without certain date. The gift was held fictitious and set aside against the administration. Transposed to a French house, the danger pattern is recognisable: give the house to the children, sell it straight after, and keep the price \u2014 or keep collecting the rents into your own account. A genuine gift means a genuine parting. Keep the bank trails clean: rents after the gift belong to the donees, the price on any prompt resale belongs to the donees, and any loan-back from the children must be a real documented loan with a certain date, not a private note.<\/p>\n The second weapon is the abuse-of-law procedure itself, and here the taxpayer has cards to play. The same decision recalls the procedure: “le contribuable dispose d’un d\u00e9lai de trente jours \u00e0 compter de la r\u00e9ception de la r\u00e9ponse de l’administration \u00e0 ses observations pour demander que le litige soit soumis \u00e0 l’avis du comit\u00e9 de l’abus de droit fiscal” (CE, 5 Feb. 2018, No 409718<\/a>). Within thirty days of receiving the administration’s reply to their observations, the taxpayer can demand referral to the abuse-of-law committee \u2014 a deadline that must be diarised the day the reply arrives. And referral changes the burden of proof: “En l’absence de saisine du comit\u00e9 consultatif pour la r\u00e9pression des abus de droit, la charge de la preuve du bien-fond\u00e9 de l’imposition incombe \u00e0 l’administration.” (CE, 5 Feb. 2018, No 409718<\/a>). If the administration pursues an abuse case without consulting the committee, it must prove its case; the taxpayer is not required to prove a negative. In the 2018 case the administration had marshalled bank evidence of the father siphoning the price, so it carried that burden \u2014 which shows the rule cuts both ways: demand the committee referral, then force the administration to evidence, with documents rather than suspicions, that no genuine parting occurred.<\/p>\nI. Giving the house now: the French deed your gift needs and the forced share that follows it<\/h2>\n
A. Why an English deed of gift cannot transfer your French house<\/h3>\n
B. Why the r\u00e9serve h\u00e9r\u00e9ditaire still polices a gift made years earlier<\/h3>\n
II. Paying gift tax on the French house \u2014 and fighting the assessment<\/h2>\n
A. What the children owe even when the whole family lives in England<\/h3>\n
B. When the tax office attacks the gift: sham, abuse of law, and your remedies<\/h3>\n