Overseas Chambers of Peter Harris

Overseas Chambers
c/o Addington Chambers
160, Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2DQ,
United Kingdom
https://addingtonchambers.com

Fellow of the European Law Institute Vienna
https://overseaschambers.com/
Barrister at Law - Regulated by
the Bar Standards Board
Bar Mututal insurance: 8015/009

French Government has set aside €291M to enable reimbursing non-residents for wrongly collected CSG and CRDS

June 18th 2015

Olivier Cadic, the French Senatorial Representative for non-resident French citizens, has announced that the French Government has set aside a provision of €291M to repay non-residents CSG and  CRDS wrongly collected on immovable profits and capital gains. They have been forced to following the recent upper court decision of the Conseil d'Etat, which had to go under the yoke of the CJEU judgement.  This was the last final Court of appeal in France available to the administration, which clearly has no intention of respecting Union norms.  The gain to the French treasury lies in the limited period which it is required to repay. There is a period of unlawful collection which escapes.

Whether the CJEU would tolerate this were the issue to be brought before it is another matter, irrespective of the budgetary consequences for a Member State seeking to enrich itself over a long term outside EU rules.

Repayment claims by UK residents are relatively straightforward. We can assist here.

Any reimbursement claim by a Channel Islander or Manx resident needs to be carefully reasoned and prepared, as the CJEU deciions was issued onthe basis that the CSG CRDS was a disguised social security contributiuon, not a tax.  Channel Islanders are generally outside the EU social security one stop NI contributions. Speak to Peter for assistance here.

However, they should not be shy of claiming reimbursement or challenging assessment to the outlawed article 164C CGI income tax assessement on three times the annual rental value of any properties available to them in France, nor to reclaiming the difference between the 16% capital gains rate previously paid by residents and the 1/3  non-resident rate to which they mauy have been subjected. This has also been outlawed as discriminatory by the CJEU.

Whilst this was clearly obtaining a fiscal advantage by a deception, the question of whether the French administration has given up on this type of hidden requalification in other areas can be simply answered; in the negative.