Clarification and Securing the new doctrinal position of Bercy, following the abandonment of the "Bacquet" in Estoral Law on Life Insurance Contracts



A previous article in these columns had been echoed there is little a simple press release following a response from Michel Sapin enough ambiguous, who had glared, and left others, especially Among the professionals, notaries, so much the said answer could give rise to questions and interpretations as to the liquidation of succession duties related to a life insurance contract (see the article in question).

Found very ambiguous, the announcement of the minister had raised a toprole in the notarial environment in particular, much wondering if they were not to be forced to carry out double-liquidations of rights, complex and especially not included from the heirs and Having rights, in addition to the fact that the fir response was not legally opposable, even though it intended to reform a "bacquet" ministerial response. For other law practitioners, the fir announcement meant that inheritance tax (on life insurance contracts) were just deferred until the death of the second spouse.

The position then of Minister Fir (see the aforementioned article) announced by simple press release, was waiting for a sequel, putting everyone in the embarrassment, and was an example of more than the tax governance at the head of the State , holding for many sometimes improvisation so as not to say more.

The clarification brought by the CIOTI ministerial response is beneficial, in the sense that, by "two strokes", it regulates the two main problems:

    She formalizes the position now taken by BERCY and makes it legally opposable;
    It neutralizes a lot of questions, removing any doubt.

Indeed, for tax liquidation, the redemption value (life insurance contracts) will not appear on the assets of community and will therefore not support the inheritance tax, thus responding to the previously posted fiscal neutrality objective. by the minister, and in addition, the CIOTI ministerial response (which therefore confirms by formalizing it, that the "ministerial bacquered response" is reported), adds and specifies that the entry into force of these amendments are worth for the successions open to from 1 January 2016.

The situation has become understandable now:

    Open successions before January 1, 2016: No change, the bacquarter response retains its effects, and estate rights are liquidated as to this change;

    For those open from January 1, 2016, the bacquet response no longer applying, the liquidation of the estate rights purely and simply the redemption value, which no longer has to appear on the assets of community .

It is simply a pity that it took this "focus" that has made before, a lot of ink, while it would have been possible from the outset, reflecting a little better with the consequences of such an announcement, to clarify the new tax doctrine and to formalize it, by an insertion to Bofip for example.

Post a Comment

أحدث أقدم