France–Mauritius — Tax Treaty

1One convention, signed in 1980 — and the substance cases that are its whole courtroom record

France and Mauritius have one convention and one protocol, and together they cover everything the two states have agreed. The convention of 11 December 1980 entered into force on 17 September 1982. The two states amended it on 23 June 2011, in an agreement French practice calls an avenant. It took effect on 1 May 2012 and rewrote the exchange-of-information article to the full post-2009 standard, which lifted bank secrecy between the two administrations. That date changed what the treaty is for: the years when Mauritius could be used mainly for privacy ended there, and what remains is a treaty for people who genuinely live there. A second instrument now sits on top of it. The multilateral instrument — an anti-abuse agreement many countries signed in 2017 — binds France from 1 January 2019 and Mauritius from 1 February 2020. It rewrote the preamble, modernised dispute resolution, and added the principal-purpose test: a tax authority may refuse a treaty benefit where obtaining it was one of the main reasons an arrangement was set up. Its property-rich gains clause (article 9 of the instrument) was NOT matched into this convention. The 1980 drafting stands, and § 4 shows why it never needed the modern clause. Article 2 covers income taxes on both sides and, through article 23, fortune. It does not cover the CSG or the CRDS, so those social levies run on French domestic law alone. The French and English texts are equally authentic, and our agency holds both official publications. There is no succession or gift convention at all — the administration's treaty list of 29 April 2026 records this relationship as income and fortune only, and § 6 is built around that absence.

Who counts as a resident

Both states can treat the same person as their resident. Article 4 settles it with a test taken in order, each step used only if the one before it does not decide: permanent home, then centre of vital interests, then habitual abode, then nationality, and finally agreement between the two administrations. France asks its own question first, under CGI article 4 B — where the family home is, where the person actually spends their time, and where their work and money are centred. The Mauritian side is stated at orientation level throughout this brief: no capital-gains tax as a rule, no inheritance tax, and a remittance basis for some non-domiciled residents under recent Finance Acts. What is verified here is the French side and the treaty texts. The Mauritian reading belongs with the family's advisers in Port Louis.

The only two rulings there are — and both are about substance

The Conseil d'État has ruled on this convention exactly twice, and both cases concern corporate structures without substance. The first case ran twice. A French group held a Mauritian subsidiary that enjoyed a privileged local regime, employed nobody, occupied no premises, and earned most of its money from share sales Mauritius exempted. France taxed the French parent on that subsidiary's profits under its controlled-foreign-company rule (CGI article 209 B), and the court upheld it. The published point was where the re-attributed income belongs in the treaty: not under the business-profits article and not under the dividends article, but under article 22 §1, other income — taxable only where the recipient lives, which was France. The convention does not stand in the way of the French anti-abuse rules (CE, 13 March 2025, n° 488080; the earlier round CE, 25 April 2022, n° 439859). In the second case, a French borrower paid interest to a Mauritian affiliate that enjoyed an 80% local abatement. The deduction failed the French minimum-taxation test — a test protocol ¶8.b expressly preserves (CE, 13 July 2022, n° 451533). Nothing else: in forty-five years, no reported decision of the supreme administrative court has touched the property articles, the fortune article or a private estate on this convention. The record says one thing. What the treaty rewards is residence with substance, and the 2011 transparency amendment is the same story's other half.

Sources considered: 1980 convention arts. 2, 4, 22 §1, 27 (as rewritten 2011); protocol ¶8.b; BOI-ANNX-000306 (29 April 2026); CE n° 488080, n° 439859, n° 451533 — decision texts read. Scope note: both rulings arise on corporate facts; neither rules on a property, a fortune assessment or an estate.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · 1980 convention arts. 2, 4, 22, 27; protocol ¶8.b; CE n° 488080, n° 439859, n° 451533 — decision texts read

2What you pay to buy a property in France, and what it costs you every year

A French purchase runs in a fixed order. First an offer. Then the pre-sales contract (compromis de vente), which gives the buyer ten days to withdraw and usually carries a 10% deposit. Then the conditions the sale depends on. Then the final deed, signed before the notaire — the public officer who draws it up, collects the taxes and registers the buyer as owner. Take the yardstick this collection uses throughout: the €4.9M median villa of Cannes and its hills, from the DVF register. On an existing property the buyer pays about 5.81% in transfer duties and land-registration taxes (€284,526). The notaire's own fees and disbursements add roughly €61,250, set by a regulated sliding scale. Together, an indicative 7% all-in (≈ €345,776). A new-build VAT regime, furniture carve-outs or mortgage security will alter the arithmetic; the notaire itemises the actual deed.

The wealth tax — on treaty ground, twice over

CGI article 964 taxes real-estate wealth above €1,300,000; for persons not domiciled in France the base is property located in France together with the fraction of any company's shares that stands for French property (article 965, 2°). On most pairs of this collection that charge rests on domestic law alone; here it stands on the treaty. Article 23 ¶1 gives France wealth made up of French property. Protocol ¶7 gives France the same right over shares in companies whose property French law taxes as immovable property. So the property held directly and the property held through a company both sit inside the convention itself. What the treaty gives away: article 23 ¶4 leaves all other wealth of a Mauritius resident taxable only in Mauritius. The value declared each year is the owner's own detailed estimate of real market value (CGI article 973 I). The local charges then follow the deed: the annual local property tax (taxe foncière) at communal rates; the possible surcharge (surtaxe) on furnished second homes in designated high-demand areas (zone tendue); and the annual occupancy declaration every owner files. These rates being communal and year-specific, the brief's edition cycle re-verifies them rather than freezing them.

Sources considered: 1980 convention art. 23 §§1, 4; protocol ¶7; CGI arts. 964, 965 2°, 973 I; cost scales stated for orientation, itemised when our agency takes the file. Scope note: the fortune article is the pair's rarity — most of this collection has no treaty ground under the IFI at all.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · 1980 convention art. 23; protocol ¶7; CGI arts. 964–965, 973 I

3Five ways to own a French property, and what follows from each

Holding structures appear here, per this collection's doctrine, as questions for analysis rather than recommendations. For a Mauritian buyer two facts organise the table: the protocol prices the company route itself (¶¶6.a and 7 — § 4 develops the gains side), and the courtroom record of this convention is entirely about structures without substance.

Direct ownership

Simplicity, and the cleanest treaty position on the shelf: France taxes the property's income, gains and wealth as the country the property stands in (articles 6, 13 ¶1, 23 ¶1), and Mauritius relieves by exemption (article 24) — one charge, once. At death French duty attaches to the property and no Mauritian assessment answers it (§ 6).

A Mauritian or other foreign company

Confidentiality and consolidation, at prices the treaty itself sets. Four charges follow. The annual 3% tax on entities holding French property (CGI articles 990 D and 990 E) asks its disclosure question every year. The property fraction of the shares bears the IFI, and protocol ¶7 gives that charge treaty ground. A sale of the shares meets protocol ¶6.a (§ 4). And at death, where the family holds more than half of a company, French law taxes the property as if they held it directly (CGI article 750 ter, 2°). And the substance lesson of § 1 applies to nothing so much as a Mauritian holding company: an entity with no activity gains nothing from this treaty against the French anti-abuse machinery.

A French SCI

An SCI (a French property-holding company) offers governance, co-ownership between family members and access to French financing. Three consequences follow on the French side. The property fraction of the shares bears the IFI. A sale of the shares is exactly the case protocol ¶6.a assigns to France, because French law taxes that sale as though it were a sale of the property. And at death, article 750 ter counts the property as if the family held it directly.

A trust in the chain

Mauritian law knows the trust, through its Trusts Act (stated at orientation). French law answers it with rules of its own. The trustee must report under CGI article 1649 AB. Where that declaration fails, article 990 J imposes a levy of its own. And where the beneficiaries' shares are undetermined, transmission rates reach 60% (article 792-0 bis). Examined with counsel on both sides before the pre-sales contract.

Giving your children the ownership now, and keeping the use for life (démembrement)

The other structure families weigh alongside a loan splits ownership in two. The parent keeps the use of the property and its income for life; French law calls that the usufruit. The children receive what is left: title without the use, called the bare ownership. The tax code puts a price on each half by the age of the parent keeping the use. On the scale in CGI article 669, the children's half is worth 60% of the full value where that parent is between 61 and 70, and 70% between 71 and 80. Gift duty is charged on that half alone, at today's value. When the parent dies the two halves come back together, and there is no second charge, provided the conditions of article 751 were met: a gift made before a notaire, more than three months before the death, valued on the article 669 scale. The wealth tax does not move — article 968 keeps the full value in the parent's IFI base. With no gift convention and no Mauritian gift duty, France alone reads the transmission, as the state where the property stands.

Borrowing against the French property cuts French wealth tax — within the code's three limits

Acquisition debt owed to a bank is deductible from the wealth-tax base (CGI article 974), and financial assets stand outside the IFI altogether, so a loan keeps liquidity invested while the debt shrinks the base. The code sets three limits. First, a loan that repays all its capital at the end is treated as though it were being repaid gradually: the deduction falls year by year across the loan's life, or by one twentieth a year where no end date is fixed. Second, where the taxable property is worth more than €5M, debt above 60% of that value counts for only half — unless the borrower shows the loan was taken for reasons that are mainly not about tax. Third, the debt has to be real: drawn, serviced and priced at market. Routed through an SCI's shareholder account, it stops reducing the value of the shares at all (article 973). One caution particular to this pair. Financing from a Mauritian entity that enjoys a favoured local regime meets the French minimum-taxation test protocol ¶8.b expressly preserves, and the court has applied it (n° 451533). The deduction is examined, not assumed.

Sources considered: CGI arts. 669, 750 ter 2°, 751, 792-0 bis, 968, 973–974, 990 D–990 E, 990 J, 1649 AB, 212; 1980 convention protocol ¶¶6.a, 7, 8.b; CE n° 451533. Scope note: structures are questions, not recommendations, settled with counsel in France and in Mauritius.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · CGI arts. 669, 750 ter, 751, 792-0 bis, 968, 973–974, 990 D–J, 1649 AB; protocol ¶¶6.a, 7, 8.b; CE n° 451533

4What you pay when you sell — and why the 1980 protocol already does the modern work

France taxes first, as the state where the property stands: article 13 ¶1 assigns gains on French immovables to France. For the Mauritius-resident seller the rules are in CGI article 244 bis A, and they work in three steps. First, the taxable gain shrinks with the years of ownership: by 6% for each year beyond the fifth, and by 4% for the twenty-second (article 150 VC). Second, the income-tax part runs at 19% (article 200 B) and disappears after 22 years; the social levies take 30 years to disappear. Third, a taxable gain above €50,000 carries the surcharge of article 1609 nonies G — 6% at the levels this market transacts. Worked on €1,000,000 of gross gain, on a property sold at the Cannes median of €4.9M: after 10 full years the allowance is 30%, so €700,000 stays taxable, giving €133,000 of income tax and a €42,000 surcharge. After 15 years the allowance is 60%, so €400,000 stays taxable, giving €76,000 and €24,000. After 22 years the income-tax part is gone altogether. The social levies apply at the full combined 17.2% — Mauritius sits outside the European coordination, and this convention does not cover the CSG or the CRDS at all. One more step at the sale. A seller living outside the EU and the EEA must appoint a representative approved by the French tax administration (article 244 bis A, IV). Two cases are exempt automatically: a sale of €150,000 or less per seller, and a sale already fully exempt through the thirty-year holding clock — as the administration set out on 22 January 2025. The notaire handling the deed usually arranges the appointment.

Selling the company instead — the protocol answers before the question is finished

The 1980 text has no property-rich article of the modern kind, and the multilateral instrument's 365-day clause was not matched into it. That absence misleads if it is read alone, because the protocol already does the work. Paragraph 6.a gives France the gain on shares, rights or participations in any company holding French property, wherever French law already taxes that gain as though it were a gain on the property itself. French law does exactly that where the company's value comes mainly from French property (the regime of CGI articles 244 bis A and 150 UB). Paragraph 6.b adds a second route, overriding article 13 ¶4: a holding of 25% or more of a company's profit rights is taxable in the state where that company is resident. The 25% is counted together with associated or related persons, and whether the holding is direct or indirect. Only what neither paragraph catches falls back to article 13 ¶4, taxable solely where the seller lives. And the principal-purpose test — which lets a tax authority refuse a treaty benefit obtained mainly for that benefit — now overlays any arrangement built to reach that fallback. For the family selling a French property company, the practical answer is therefore the same as selling the property: France taxes, and Mauritius relieves by exemption (article 24 ¶1).

What Mauritius does with the same gain

Article 24 relieves French-source property income and gains on the Mauritian side by exemption with progression rather than by credit — and Mauritian domestic law, stated at orientation, levies no capital-gains tax as a rule. The French charge is in practice the only charge. The Mauritian return and any remittance-basis questions belong with the family's advisers in Port Louis.

Leaving after the sale — what the exit tax does and does not reach

France's exit tax (CGI article 167 bis) is about securities, not property. It reaches someone who was French-domiciled for at least six of the ten years before leaving. What it taxes is the gain on paper, as it stands on the day of departure, on holdings worth more than €800,000 or on a stake of 50% or more of a company's profits. A property already sold has settled its own tax under the rules above, and the sale proceeds are not caught. Shares of a family SCI follow the property rather than the portfolio: so long as the company keeps the ordinary income-tax regime, gains on its shares stay within the real-estate rules (CGI article 150 UB) and outside the exit tax. A family that leaves before six years of French domicile stands outside the latent-gains charge altogether. Where the machinery does apply, payment is generally deferred, and the assessment lapses where the securities are still held two years after departure — five where the portfolio exceeded €2.57M — or upon a return to France.

Sources considered: 1980 convention arts. 13 §§1, 4, 24 §1; protocol ¶¶6.a, 6.b; CGI arts. 150 UB, 150 VC, 167 bis, 200 B, 244 bis A (incl. IV), 1609 nonies G; BOI-RFPI-PVINR-30-20 (22 January 2025); CE n° 400329 and CJUE Jahin C-45/17 on the social levies. Scope note: the interplay of protocol ¶6.a with article 244 bis A's domestic reach is stated from the texts; no court has ruled on it, and the file-specific reading is examined when our agency takes the file.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · 1980 convention arts. 13, 24; protocol ¶¶6.a, 6.b; CGI arts. 150 UB, 150 VC, 167 bis, 200 B, 244 bis A, 1609 nonies G

5Renting before you buy, and renting your property out

A rental year before buying remains the classic first step, and it deserves one plain caution. French tax domicile under CGI article 4 B rests on where the family home is, where the person spends their time, and where their work and money are centred. None of that yields to the label on a lease. A property that becomes the family's real home can make them French residents, with worldwide consequences, before they have bought anything; the ordered test in article 4 then decides which state prevails. The choice between furnished seasonal rentals and the one-to-three-year civil lease sets the exit flexibility.

Renting the property out reverses the flow. France taxes the rent an owner living abroad earns from a French property, and that includes the furnished rentals usual at this price point. CGI article 197 A sets a floor: at least 20% up to the second-bracket ceiling, and 30% above it. An owner who can show that their worldwide income bears a lower effective rate pays that lower rate instead. Social levies add their full 17.2% on top, on the third-country footing of § 4. The convention gives the income to France as the state where the property stands (article 6). Mauritius relieves the same income by exemption with progression (article 24 ¶1). So here too the French charge is in practice the only charge, with the Mauritian return a matter for the family's advisers in Port Louis.

Sources considered: CGI arts. 4 B, 197 A; 1980 convention arts. 4, 6, 24 §1. Scope note: treatment turns on the form of exploitation and on affiliation, both questions of fact.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · CGI arts. 4 B, 197 A; 1980 convention arts. 4, 6, 24

6What happens to the property when you die, or give it away — and why French law alone decides

No succession or gift convention exists between France and Mauritius, and Mauritius levies no inheritance tax of its own (orientation) — so the assessment at death is French, and whole. French duty attaches to the property because it stands in France, whatever the owner's domicile, and for lifetime gifts as much as for estates. Companies in the chain do not change that. Where the deceased or the donor — counted together with their spouse, parents, children or siblings — holds more than half of a company that owns the property, French law taxes the property as if they had held it directly (CGI article 750 ter, 2°). Where the deceased was French-domiciled, or where an heir has been French-resident for six of the ten preceding years, France taxes the worldwide transmission instead (750 ter, 1° and 3°). The scale is article 777's, progressive to 45% in the direct line beyond €1.8M per share after the €100,000 per-child allowance of article 779, the surviving spouse exempt in succession. With no Mauritian death duty there is no credit question to ask; what the family goes without is any treaty ceiling on the French reach — so the residence condition of 750 ter 3° deserves attention wherever children study or settle in France. The values declared for the duty are the owner's own detailed estimate of market value (CGI articles 761 and 1897).

The choice of law, and the French levy that runs on EU connections

Under Regulation 650/2012, which France applies to every succession, a Mauritian national habitually resident in France may elect Mauritian law for the succession as a whole. French forced heirship remains the frame: French law reserves a share of the estate for the children. Where a succession is governed by a foreign law that gives children no equivalent protection, Code civil article 913, al. 3 lets a child take that reserved share out of the assets sitting in France. That levy carries a condition of its own — the deceased, or one of the children, must be an EU national or habitually resident in the EU. For a Mauritian family, whether it applies usually turns on their European connections. The choice of law, the matrimonial regime carried into the purchase and the calendar of any gifts belong with counsel on both sides, before the pre-sales contract.

Sources considered: CGI arts. 750 ter, 761, 777, 779, 1897; Code civil arts. 912–913; EU Reg. 650/2012. Scope note: Mauritian succession law is stated at orientation only; the French analysis is the verified ground.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · CGI arts. 750 ter, 761, 777, 779, 1897; Code civil art. 913 al. 3; EU Reg. 650/2012

7The eight questions Mauritian owners ask most

Does a Mauritius resident pay French wealth tax on a Riviera property?

Yes, once French real-estate assets pass €1.3M — held directly, or through the property fraction of company shares (CGI article 964). On this pair the wealth tax rests on the treaty itself, not on French law alone: article 23 gives France wealth made up of French property, and protocol ¶7 extends that to shares in property companies. All other fortune of a Mauritius resident stays taxable only in Mauritius (article 23 ¶4).

Who taxes the gain when a Mauritius resident sells a French property?

France, as the state where the property stands (article 13 ¶1), under CGI article 244 bis A with the duration allowances — the income-tax component extinct after 22 years, the social levies after 30. Mauritius relieves the same gain by exemption (article 24 ¶1), so the French charge is in practice the only charge.

And if the property is held through a company — does selling the shares change the answer?

As a rule, no. Protocol ¶6.a gives France the gain on shares in any company that French law already taxes as though the shares were the property itself — which French law does where the company's value comes mainly from French property (articles 244 bis A and 150 UB). Paragraph 6.b adds any holding of 25% or more, counted together with associated or related persons. Article 13 ¶4's residence-state rule governs only what neither paragraph catches. The principal-purpose test then overlays any arrangement built to reach it: a treaty benefit can be refused where obtaining it was a main reason for the arrangement.

Which country taxes the succession on a French property?

France, and only France — but without a ceiling. No succession convention exists and Mauritius levies no inheritance tax. French duty attaches to the property because it stands in France, counts family-held companies in (CGI article 750 ter), and runs to 45% in the direct line beyond €1.8M per share. Where an heir has been French-resident for six of the ten preceding years, it extends to the worldwide transmission.

Has the France–Mauritius convention ever been litigated?

Twice, and both cases are about substance, not property. In the first, the Conseil d'État backed France taxing a group on the profits of a Mauritian subsidiary that had no staff, no premises and no activity; that income landed under the treaty's other-income article, taxable in France (n° 488080, published in the selected reports; earlier round n° 439859). In the second, it applied the French minimum-taxation test — which protocol ¶8.b preserves — to interest paid to a favoured Mauritian affiliate (n° 451533). The property articles are unlitigated in forty-five years.

Is rental income from France taxed if the owner lives in Mauritius?

Yes — France taxes it first as the state where the property stands (article 6), under the minimum-rate regime of CGI article 197 A at no less than 20% and 30% beyond the second-bracket ceiling, with social levies at 17.2% in addition. Mauritius relieves the same income by exemption with progression (article 24 ¶1).

Is the reduced 7.5% social levy available?

No. The reduced rate is for sellers covered by the European social-security rules, and someone insured in Mauritius is not. This convention does not cover the CSG or the CRDS at all, so the full 17.2% applies under French law alone.

Does the sale require a fiscal representative?

As a rule, yes. A seller domiciled outside the EU and the EEA appoints a representative accredited by the French administration, who answers for the filing and the payment (CGI article 244 bis A, IV). Automatic exemptions cover sales at €150,000 or less per seller and sales fully exempt through the thirty-year holding clock; the deed's notaire ordinarily arranges the appointment.

Sources considered: these answers condense the sections above and inherit their scope notes.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026

8The court decisions, the sources and the sales figures

The market first, because every figure above traces to it. Three registers cleared €11.5 billion across 2014–2025: Cannes and its hills (306 qualified €3M+ villa sales for €2,066M, at a €4.9M median), the Saint-Tropez peninsula (1,006 sales, €7,049M) and Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat (178 sales, €6.5M median). Every line traces to the state's own transaction data — DVF (« Demandes de Valeurs Foncières », DGFiP), villa sales of €3M and above, duplicate estate records removed. At this edition the surveyed registers carry no ownership position attributable to Mauritian residence — the blank line is stated rather than passed over, and the first positions to appear will open the column.

The legal method. Legal statements are verified against the Chiron Legal Corpus — the research library maintained by our agency's offshore legal-research partner — re-checked against the official sources at each edition. The review of 10 August 2026 covered Légifrance (CGI articles 4 B, 150 UB, 150 VC, 167 bis, 197 A, 200 B, 212, 244 bis A incl. IV, 669, 750 ter, 751, 761, 777, 779, 792-0 bis, 964–965, 968, 973–974, 990 D–990 E, 990 J, 1609 nonies G, 1649 AB, 1897; Code civil article 913 — consolidated texts). It also covered both official publications of the convention: the French consolidated text, and the Mauritius Revenue Authority's English MLI-synthesised text. The two languages are equally authentic, and our agency holds both. This migration re-read the pivotal articles verbatim in both texts: articles 13, 23 and 24, and protocol ¶¶6.a, 6.b, 7 and 8.b — a re-read that corrected this brief's own earlier edition, which had presented ¶6.b as the protocol's only property clause. The jurisprudence was read in the decision texts: CE n° 488080 (13 March 2025, published in the selected reports), n° 439859 (25 April 2022) and n° 451533 (13 July 2022); on the social levies, CE n° 400329 and CJUE Jahin C-45/17. The administration's commentary (BOI-INT-CVB-MUS) dates from 12 September 2012 — where it and the texts diverge, this brief follows the texts.

Mauritian law appears in this brief for orientation only — no capital-gains tax and no inheritance tax as a rule, the flat-rate income regimes, the remittance basis in recent Finance Acts, the Trusts Act. None of it carries a legal claim here on its own. The Mauritian reading belongs with the family's advisers in Port Louis.

What our agency is watching for the next edition. First, any France–Mauritius succession instrument: the first one would rewrite § 6 entirely. Then the annual budget law (Loi de finances), for movements on the IFI and transfer duties; communal surcharge votes on the Riviera arc; Mauritian Finance Acts on the remittance basis; any change to either state's reservations under the multilateral instrument; and any refresh of the 2012 commentary.

This brief documents published law and public transaction data. It is research rather than personalised legal or tax advice, and individual circumstances — residence history, nationality, matrimonial regime, the chain of title — change outcomes. For a live transaction, our agency coordinates the appropriate French counsel (avocat fiscaliste, notaire) and executes the property side.

Reviewed as at 10 August 2026 · decision texts read; both authentic treaty texts held; DVF register, duplicate estate records removed

Further intelligence

The Riviera villa market — the coast-wide €3M+ index

Riviera property tax & relocation — the incoming buyer's primer

France–Germany — the convention pair

France–Switzerland — the convention pair