A senator announced on Friday an appeal to enforce the reduction in the tax reduction for Airbnb-type accommodation, a measure mistakenly retained by the government in its 2024 budget. “We do not vote for the law not to apply it,” communist senator Ian Brossat was indignant on Friday.
The elected official refers to a hiccup that occurred during the examination of the state budget adopted at the end of 2023: the government had then forgotten to delete an article introduced by the opposition significantly reducing the tax reduction for furnished tourist accommodation, while he had the possibility.
An “error” that will be “corrected”
A note from the Official Bulletin of Public Finances dedicated to taxes, published on Wednesday, however, specifies that it will be “accepted that taxpayers can continue to apply to 2023 income the provisions (...) prior” to the vote on this budget.
“The lack of implementation of the text is illegal and represents a gigantic shortfall for public finances,” added Ian Brossat, announcing that he would go to administrative justice and promising “an appeal” to the Council of State.
At the initiative of senators from several sides, the article adopted during the examination of the 2024 draft budget this fall provided for lowering the tax allowance on rentals of furnished tourist accommodation to 30% (instead of 71%). in areas that encounter difficulties in accessing housing.
The government, if it had agreed to review the tax niche, was against the idea of reducing the reduction to this extent, and could have removed the measure from the text when using article 49.3.
But he had let this article pass in the final version of the budget, an “error” which “will be corrected in the next finance law”, recalled the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
Also read: Airbnb rentals in Paris: “Controls are always necessary”
“In order to limit the consequences of the retroactive application” of the measure, “it was accepted that taxpayers could continue to apply the provisions then in force,” the ministry was further informed.
“Very concretely, this measure would otherwise have forced the owners affected by the reductions in thresholds to reconstitute accounts retrospectively even though they were not previously subject to this obligation,” we added.