The French administration and Parliament, have capitulated before the judgment and rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the pressure applied by the Commission.

Article 60 of the loi de finances rectificative pour 2014 has equalised the Capital Gains rate of 19% for all transactions, whether by residents or not residents at 19%, as opposed to the dual rate of 19% for residents and one third for non-residents.  Curious however that the administration cannot let go what it has illegally collected, as the amendments at article 60 only apply to transactions after 1st January, 2015. J'ai bien dit bizarre...

However, this means that any reclaim for years prior to 2015 has to be done by a claim, and then by threatening to seize the administrative tribunal.

This is no longer a State which respects its international obligations.

There remains therefore a need to make a claim in this area for years prior to 2015, and also in areas such as the article 164C débacle where the administration is still refusing to repay by stating that it has no confirmation from the Ministère as to procedures to enable this to be done.

The French have now forced non-residents into a position of administrative non-compliance, which is not assisted by the official Fiscal Representatives, who will not dare go against the administration for fear of losing their lucrative administrative status:  the dark side of privatisation.  There has been a change in this area, particularly for sales by EU residents, that have been forced on the French administration by the Commission, as there is now sufficient information exchange available to counter most risks of fraud. As anticipated, the French administration has attempted to restrict the generalised freedom of movement provisions to EU and EEA residents; its usual tactic.

Whilst the legal professions such as avocats, notaries and huissiers are being ruthlessly hounded out of their business by the loi Macron, that was evidently not the case with the Fiscal Representatives appointed by the Finance Ministry.  The requirement for their appointment has been challenged before the CJEU as a further obstacle to the freedom of movement of capital, quite correctly, as it facilitates and institutionalises administrative abuse of the EU legal order.  The CJEU in case n° C-678/11 declared the Spanish requirement to appoint a fiscal representative disproportionate in insurance matters, even to prevent fiscal fraud and evasion.   Article 62 of the French loi de finances rectificative pour 2014 abolishes the need for the intervention of a Permanent Representative in any sale by an ijndividual or company reseident in the EU or the EEA. It goes without saying that such limitations have been found to be obstacles in the past, and given the wordwide access to fiscal informatoin it is unlikely that the restriction of the advantage to EU and EEA nationals will stand for much longer either.

Naive to expect the French to actually implement an EU principle without adding garlic and the odd administrative crucifix.