The government is demanding 18.6% when you were supposed to pay 9.7%.
This interpretation is disputed.

An SASU subject to income tax is an SASU that has opted, pursuant to Article 239 bis AB of the General Tax Code (CGI), for the tax regime applicable to partnerships (Article 8 of the CGI) for a maximum of five fiscal years. Profits are then taxed directly in the hands of the sole member (as business income [BIC], non-commercial income [BNC], or agricultural income [BA]), without the distribution of dividends. Since the summer of 2025, the tax authorities have been conducting extensive audits of these structures: when the president does not pay himself any compensation, the authorities argue that the profits are subject to social security contributions on investment income, rather than on earned income.

Income from business activities of self-employed individuals is subject to social security contributions at a rate of 9.7% (Articles L. 136-1 through L. 136-5 of the Social Security Code), collected by URSSAF. Income from assets is subject to a 17.2% rate, which was increased to 18.6% effective January 1, 2026, by the 2026 Social Security Financing Act (LFSS) (Art. L. 136-6 of the CSS), collected by the DGFIP. On €100,000 in annual profit, the difference amounts to approximately €7,500 per year, or more than €25,000 over the three years covered by an audit and the current year, excluding late-payment interest.

In response to Written Question No. 12673 from Ms. Anne Bergantz, the Ministry of the Economy confirmed on June 2, 2026, that, in its view, the unpaid director of an SASU subject to income tax does not fall under either the “deemed-employee” regime or the self-employed regime: his entire profit would therefore be subject to social security contributions on income from assets. This ministerial response has no normative value in and of itself: it formalizes administrative doctrine but is not binding on the courts. This interpretation is legally questionable and must be challenged.

Yes. The most effective preventive measure is to pay yourself a salary—even a modest one—for your role as president: this enrolls you in the general social security system and deprives the authorities of their main argument. It is also recommended that you document the personal nature of your activities (contracts signed by the executive, reporting, and the absence of any employees performing the services) and verify that no Form No. 2777 has been filed in error.

In principle, you have 30 days from the date of receipt to submit your comments; this period may be extended by an additional 30 days upon request made within the initial time limit. A reasoned response within this timeframe is essential: it determines the next steps in the procedure (hierarchical appeal under Article L. 54 C of the LPF, followed by an administrative complaint under Article L. 190 of the LPF).

No, compensation cannot be backdated for years that have already passed. However, implementing it now secures the current and future fiscal years. For years subject to audit, the defense is based on legal grounds: whether the profits of an executive who personally and directly operates the business qualify as business income.

No. To date, there has been no ruling of principle by the Council of State on this specific point. Several legal actions, including cases before the Council of State, have already been filed by the profession. Each contested case contributes to the development of case law, which is yet another reason not to accept a tax assessment without challenging it.

Our services start at €900 (excluding tax) for an exposure assessment, €1,500 (excluding tax) for assistance with an ongoing audit, and €3,000 (excluding tax) for challenging a proposed tax adjustment, up to and including proceedings before the administrative court. The latter two options include a 20% success fee based on the amounts ultimately not adjusted, and the amount already paid for audit assistance is fully deducted from the litigation fee. A fee agreement is drawn up before any work begins. Given that the amount at stake frequently exceeds €25,000, the cost of the defense remains significantly lower than the amount claimed.

Some taxpayers have filed Form 2777 treating the profits of their transparent SASU as dividends, which is an error: under the provisions of Article 8 of the General Tax Code (CGI), no distribution is required, and the profits are not considered distributed income. We systematically verify this point during our review, as an incorrectly filed Form 2777 can weaken your position.

The administrative phase (comments, appeals within the agency, formal complaints) generally takes 6 to 18 months. If the case is referred to an administrative court, it will take an additional 1 to 2 years. A contentious claim may be accompanied by a request for a stay of payment (Art. L. 277 of the LPF) to prevent the disbursement of the claimed amounts during the proceedings.