Roche & Cie

Inheritance or wealth tax, allowances on the value cumulate

The abatements for “occupation” and “undivided” accumulate when it comes to evaluating a property for a declaration of ISF or succession, recalls the Court of Cassation.

Taxpayers can accumulate allowances for “occupation” and “undivided” in the assessment of property in connection with a declaration of ISF or succession, recalls the Court of Cassation.

It thus rejects the tax administration’s contestations, explaining that these are two different disadvantages, one and the other, reduce the market value of a property. Indeed, it must be evaluated according to the price that could be obtained by the interaction of supply and demand in the real market, on January 1 of the tax year.

The reduction of 20% of the value for “occupation”, whether for example the presence of a tenant, was not criticized by the tax authorities, but the latter refused to then apply a new abatement 20% for “undivided”, the value of the shares of each joint.

Given the difficulty selling undivided property, the accumulated value of the undivided shares is less than the total market value of the property, explained the judges. “The joint rights can be considered as 20% lower than the total value of the property,” said the appeal court.

The Supreme Court approved this reasoning: “the rights of an undivided, as the shares (…) a real estate company, have a value lower than the proportion they represent of the total value of the property “, did she say.

She has admitted that after applying a discount of 20% on the total value of the property because he was busy, each of the joint owners applied to the value of its share further reduction of 20% to reflect the state indivision that, too, is an obstacle to the sale, diminishing the price that could be removed.

The assessment of a property is by comparison with the prices reported in the transfers of property with the same characteristics and assigned to the same use. But in that same judgment, the Supreme Court accepted that, for lack of identical elements of comparison, the tax authorities may consider “comparable” property, not “intrinsically identical” as a taxpayer supported.