In certain circumstances a landlord can be held responsible for the payment of the taxe d’habitation owed by their tenant.

The taxe d’habitation, or residence tax, is of course one of the two local property taxes that are payable, the other being the tax foncière.

Liability to the taxe d’habitation depends for the most part on the type of letting activity being undertaken by the landlord, whether a holiday rental or a property let on an annual basis.

Holiday Lettings

Where a landlord lets out the property as a furnished holiday letting, then it is they who are liable for the tax. The tenant is never liable.

However, the landlord is relieved of this liability if they let out the property on a regular basis, for they then become liable for business rates (Contribution Economique Territoriale - CET) on the property.

In effect, what the law says is that if the lettings are of a caractère habituel, then it is a business on which business rates are payable.

Conversely, if it is only let on an occasional and irregular basis, and the owner reserves the property for their own use for at least part of the year, then no business rates are payable, but the landlord is responsible for the taxe d’habitation.

Inevitably, there are borderline cases that arise about whether the lettings are ‘regular’ or ‘occasional’ and also for properties in shared use.

Owners of chambres d'hôtes, in particular, can find themselves liable for both the residence tax and the business rates, although there are exemptions available in rural development areas.

As there are no precise rules in such cases, much will depend on the information you provide to the tax office, and how they interpret your circumstances.

Annual Lettings

Where the landlord lets on an annual basis to a tenant who occupies the property as their main home then responsibility for the taxe d’habitation resides with the tenant, irrespective of whether the property is furnished or unfurnished.

However, the landlord can sometimes become liable for arrears of the tax owed by a former tenant.

Collection of the taxe d’habitation from tenants is an issue that regularly exercises the minds of French tax officials and politicians, mainly because of the amount of unrecovered tax from properties that are vacant, or where there is no forwarding address of a former tenant.

In some urban areas the level of non-recovery is over 20% of the total tax due in the commune.

The problem for the authorities is that they are reliant on self-declaration by the tenant of their occupation of the property, so if neither the landlord nor the tenant inform the tax office of any change in occupation, then it is likely the tax demand will be received in the name of the former tenant and will be invalid.

In order to try and keep tabs on changes in occupation, the law formally grants the right to landlords to obtain evidence from their departing tenant that they have paid their residence tax.

Wrestling such evidence out of a tenant about to vacate may not be easy, so where it is not obtained the landlord must notify the tax office within one month of the departure their tenant. This period is increased to three months in the event of a moonlight flit by the tenant.

Strictly speaking, a failure to notify the tax office makes the landlord liable for the tax, although anecdotal evidence suggests that most local tax offices do not rigidly enforce this rule.

Indeed, where the landlord can demonstrate that they were a victim of unforeseen circumstances, or that they acted in good faith, then they can be relieved of responsibility for the tax. Just how this is concession is applied depends on the circumstances of each case.

Moreover, the landlord is only liable where a demand has actually been made on the tenant. Where a tenant vacates the property before they have received a tax demand the landlord cannot then be held responsible for the tax.

The tenant is also only liable for the tax if they occupied the property on the 1st January. So if the tenancy started on 3rd January, and they left on 24th December, they would not be liable for the tax at that property. Neither would the landlord.