Furnished rental: the rejection of the reinstatement of depreciation, really good news?

Free forum

On November 8, MPs adopted amendments leading to the rejection of the increase in taxation on furnished rentals provided for in the 2025 draft budget. However, mass is not said, warns Baptiste Bochart, lawyer at jedeclaremonmeuble.com.

• 
  

  To safeguard
  

  
  
  

  Saved
  

The vote on the 2025 finance bill continues, and its passage in the National Assembly has provided a pleasant surprise for non-professional furnished rental companies (LMNO). In fact, article 24 of the bill was rejected following the vote of the deputies. And even if the suspense is far from over, this vote bodes well for the LMNP: explanations.

What is article 24 of the PLF 2025?

If most rental companies will recognize the measure in question having already heard about it recently, it should above all be remembered that article 24 of the PLF 2025 proposed to reintegrate the depreciation deducted for tax purposes when calculating the capital gain realized during the sale of an asset allocated to an LMNP activity to the actual tax regime. Such a measure meant a reduction in the acquisition price, and therefore a higher amount of capital gains subject to capital gains tax (19%) and social security contributions (17.2%) upon resale good.

If the impact of this measure should already have been tempered, due to its sole application to cases of sale, and to the system of legal reductions on capital gains for duration of holding, it nevertheless did not fail to provoke a reaction. However, these reactions have visibly found an echo within the National Assembly.

Why was Article 24 rejected on November 8?

The rejection of article 24 actually took place in several acts this Friday, November 8. Firstly, with the successive adoption of two amendments considerably restricting the scope of the text, and at the same time responding to numerous criticisms addressed to the measure since its presentation in the initial text of the PLF 2025 in October. Indeed, many investors saw this article as a challenge to their wealth and investment strategy, which is why the timetable for applying this measure was quickly discussed. A first amendment to this effect was therefore voted on, amendment exempting all real estate investments made before October 1, 2024 from such a measure.

Another argument, more general, aimed to highlight a form of inconsistency between the announced objectives of the text, namely reducing the imbalance in the rental market, and the scope of the measure, much broader than its announced target. Indeed, if short-term furnished accommodation has been in the spotlight for some time during debates on the housing crisis, the implementation of a measure concerning all rental companies, and therefore also those renting their property on the long duration, had provoked numerous reactions. However, this speech also seems to have been heard by a majority of deputies, who wished restrict this measure to short-term furnished accommodation only. After the vote on these two amendments, the text therefore only concerned properties rented for short periods acquired after October 1, 2024. Such a reduction in its scope of application therefore pushed the deputies to reject article 24 in its entirety.

Is this a real victory for the LMNP?

Following this vote, the LMNP can note with satisfaction that the main existing arguments against the reinstatement of depreciation have been heard by a large part of the political class. If it is certainly a question ofgood newswe will nevertheless have to be careful in the coming weeks. Indeed, the measure could return to the text by the end of the year, when, for example, the text passes before the Senate. The senators could indeed choose to bring back article 24 in the text of the PLF 2025. However, it should be noted on this subject that they themselves were opposed, last May, to a measure analogous, which then only concerned short-term furnished accommodation, be integrated into the text of the Le Meur bill, recently passed in its final version.

In support of their position at the time, the senators had invoked a lack of visibility on the consequences of the measurebefore the subject was kicked aside during the negotiations on the text, referring it to the examination of the PLF 2025. Obviously, recourse by the government to article 49-3 of the Constitution could also take place , and the presence of article 24 in the initial version of the text presented by the government could have its importance in the decision to retain such a measure in the event of a possible recourse to 49-3. But the opposition it has given rise to could also weigh in the balance…