La détermination forfaitaire,

Application pratique:

This 1997 ruling confirms that once this statutory percentage has been applied, no additional allowance can be claimed on top of it simply because the ownership is split (démembrement). Mrs. Dubois and her children should not ask the notary or tax office for a further reduction based on the split itself, since the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) has firmly rejected this. They should instead focus any tax optimisation efforts on other available allowances (such as the spousal exemption or child allowances), and keep all valuation documents in case of a later tax audit.

Application pratique:

Per this case law, Mr. Kader cannot ask for an extra discount on the donated bare ownership's taxable value just because the property has been split between usufruct and bare ownership — the statutory scale already accounts for this. He should plan the donation amount and timing based strictly on the official percentage table, not on hopes of a supplementary tax reduction. He should consult a notary to confirm the exact percentage applicable at his current age and consider combining the donation with the standard parent-child allowance (currently around €100,000 per child every 15 years) to maximise tax efficiency legitimately.

Application pratique:

Based on this 1997 Supreme Court decision, such an argument will fail: the fixed percentage method under Article 762-1 already stands as the complete and exclusive valuation rule, excluding any supplementary allowance tied to the mere fact of the split ownership. Ms. Lefèvre's lawyer should instead verify that the correct age-based percentage was applied and check for calculation errors, rather than pursuing a claim for an additional abatement. If the tax authority's assessment contains an error in the percentage applied or the base value, that is the only valid ground for a formal challenge (réclamation contentieuse) within the legal time limit.