On April 8, 2026, the Council of State confirmed the position of the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal in the case of Lupa Patrimoine France (n°504454). A listed real estate investment company (SIIC) was requalified as a real estate trader, thus losing the benefit of the corporate tax exemption (IS) attached to its specific tax regime.

This decision, highly anticipated by the real estate sector, serves as a reminder of the fragility of the SIIC status when the activity strays from purely rental logic.

This article, written by PRAX Avocats, aims to analyze its implications, the criteria established by case law, and the practical consequences for real estate company executives and investors.

---

1. The SIIC Regime: An Attractive Tax Tool, but with a Limited Scope

The Listed Real Estate Investment Companies (SIIC) regime, provided for in Article 208 C of the General Tax Code, allows certain real estate companies to be exempt from IS on:

their rental income, provided they distribute at least 95% to their shareholders;

their capital gains from sales, distributed at 70%.

In return, SIICs must engage in strictly rental activity, without encroaching into the commercial sphere.

This mechanism thus supports the liquidity of the listed real estate market by promoting long-term holding and income redistribution.

However, this exemption rests on a fragile boundary: that which separates asset management (investment and rental) from the activity of real estate trading (buying to resell with speculative intent).

It is precisely on this boundary that the case of Lupa Patrimoine France encountered issues.

---

2. The Lupa Patrimoine France Case: Requalification as a Real Estate Trader

The Facts

The company Lupa Patrimoine France, operating under the SIIC regime, had acquired seven properties from its parent company.

Over a decade, it sold six of them at regular intervals. These sales mechanically led to a reduction in its rental activity and its immobilized real estate assets.

Believing that these operations constituted a habitual activity of buying for resale, the tax administration challenged the benefit of the SIIC exemption.

The company contested this, arguing an initial intention for rental management and the ancillary nature of these sales.

The Council of State's Decision

The Council of State, in its decision of April 8, 2026, refused to admit the appeal.

It ruled that the company should be considered as engaging in a real estate trading activity, despite its social purpose of real estate management.

Three elements were decisive:

1. Repetition of Operations: six sales in ten years were sufficient to characterize the habitual nature of the buy-sell operations.

2. Continuous Reduction of Rental Activity: the decrease in the rental portfolio revealed a shift towards sales rather than retention.

3. Lack of Long-Term Exploitation Intent: the Council of State confirmed that a speculative intent could be inferred from the facts (notably from the adopted asset strategy), even without explicit proof of an immediate resale project.

This objective approach reinforces an already emerging case law trend: qualification does not depend on legal form or corporate name, but on the economic reality of the operations.

---

3. Criteria for Qualifying as a Real Estate Trader

Constant case law (CE February 6, 1985, n°33471; CE April 29, 2009, n°299588) retains two cumulative criteria:

1. The Habitual Nature of Buy and Sell Operations:

It is assessed based on frequency, number of operations, and their duration.

In Lupa Patrimoine France, the decadal frequency and volume were sufficient to establish this habitual nature.

2. Speculative Intent at the Time of Acquisition:

It is inferred from the factual circumstances, not just the company's statements.

The absence of long-term rental or the rapid sale of assets may suffice to characterize this intent.

The Council of State reminds that the activity of real estate trading is a commercial activity under Article 35, I-1° of the CGI and, as such, incompatible with the SIIC exemption regime.

This reminder serves as a warning: a listed real estate company cannot alternate between rental management and regular sales without risking the loss of the exemption.

---

4. Tax Consequences of Requalification

The requalification leads to significant consequences for the company:

Subject to IS at the normal rate of 25% on capital gains from sales.

Retroactive loss of the SIIC regime and immediate taxation of latent capital gains, under the "exit tax" provided for in Article 208 C II of the CGI.

Risk of VAT recalls on sales of properties completed within the last five years (Article 257, I-2 of the CGI).

Beyond the direct tax cost, such requalification can also damage credibility with investors and complicate the company's financing strategy.

---

5. Points of Caution for Executives and Investors

In light of this tightening case law, some best practices are essential:

Document the Exploitation Intent: demonstrate, from the acquisition, a clear rental strategy (leases, renovation programs, amortization periods, income projections).

Limit the Frequency of Sales: occasional sales may be acceptable, but their multiplication becomes a warning signal.

Anticipate Tax Consequences: each sale should be analyzed to assess its impact on maintaining the SIIC regime.

Consult a tax lawyer before any asset restructuring or refinancing operation.

Support from a firm specialized in business law and real estate taxation like PRAX Avocats remains a major asset to secure compliance of the economic model with the regime's requirements.

---

6. A Broader Lesson for Start-ups and Capital-Intensive Companies

Beyond the listed real estate sector, the case of Lupa Patrimoine France provides a more general lesson: the administration and judges are now focused on the reality of operations and their economic purpose, not just the legal form or declared social purpose.

For start-ups and growing companies, this underscores the need for consistency between the economic model and the applied tax treatment.

A company engaged in asset management, equipment rental, or real estate platforms must ensure it does not unconsciously cross the boundary into commercial activity, risking requalification and reassessment.

At PRAX Avocats, we assist entrepreneurs in this security process, translating complex legal issues into strategic decisions tailored to their business model.

---

In Conclusion

The decision of April 8, 2026, confirms the heightened vigilance of tax jurisdictions regarding the scope of the SIIC regime.

It illustrates the necessity for real estate companies and investors to document their rental strategy, control the pace of sales, and seek specialized advice before any significant operation.

Contact PRAX Avocats, a specialist in French taxation in all its forms, as well as international taxation and business law.

On issues of social law, intellectual property, or complex contracts, the firm works with a network of “Best Friends” firms to provide comprehensive and tailored support.

---

Written on April 23, 2026 — PRAX Avocats, legal advice for start-ups, executives, and innovative companies.

SIIC regime and property trading activity: the Council of State confirms a strict line.