Non-professional furnished rental: what prospects after government censorship?

Free forum

The censorship of the Barnier government put an end to the examination of the finance bill for 2025, article 24 of which increased taxation on the resale of non-professional furnished rentals. Will this provision make its return in a new draft budget for 2025. Baptiste Bochart, lawyer at jedeclaremonmeuble.com, considers the possible scenarios.

• 
  

  To safeguard
  

  
  
  

  Saved
  

There reinstatement of depreciation has, since the presentation of article 24 in the initial text of PLF 2025 at the beginning of October, particularly caught the attention of furnished rentals who are subject to the real tax regime. In recent weeks, it has experienced varying fortunes, before the censorship of Michel Barnier’s government, which took place on December 4, put an end to its examination, even as it was preparing to enter into its last phase. THE non-professional furnished rental companies (LMNP) who therefore hoped to be determined on their fate by the end of the year will have to wait, since it is more than likely that a special law will renew the provisions of the 2024 finance law in order to deal as much as possible in a hurry, before a new project is presented by a new government. In this eventuality, what would be the most likely scenarios for rental companies in the coming months?

First scenario: The reintegration of depreciation is present in the new project. It is certainly the most likely scenarioespecially if the new government retains a political color similar to the previous one. Indeed, since the measure appeared in the initial version of the text, everything suggests that it could be renewed. It could nevertheless be relaxed from the start, particularly in view of the latest amendments tabled by the government during the examination of the PLF 2025 in the Senate. Indeed, on this occasion, an amendment tabled by the government had excluded managed residences from the scope of Article 24in order not to slow down the attractiveness of this type of investment and therefore to preserve a market deemed essential in view of the demand for this type of accommodation.

Abandoning the reinstatement of depreciation in the future budget?

Those who could lose, however, are the investors in tourist residenceswhich the senators also excluded from the scope of application of article 24, against the advice of the government, this time in order not to impact this activity in municipalities living largely from tourism. It would therefore be possible for this amendment to be set aside during the development of a new project. But whatever the exact content of the measure if it were to be renewed, we must not lose sight of the fact that it will have to go through the examination of the National Assembly and the Senate. However, this same National Assembly had, at the beginning of November, given Article 24 a hard time, even going as far as its rejection. Could this influence the future project, and lead to the abandonment of the reintegration of depreciation in the new text which will be proposed in 2025?

Second scenario: The reintegration of depreciation does not appear in the new project. If this possibility is less plausiblesome elements exist to support this hypothesis. Indeed, we must not forget that the National Assembly rejected article 24 after the adoption of two amendments emptying it of its substance, by very largely reducing its scope of application (short-term rentals including activity started from October 1, 2024). The vast majority of deputies were therefore unfavorable to the reinstatement of depreciation, in particular if the measure were to affect all rental companies indifferently, thus echoing the fears of rental companies as well as professionals in the sector, fearing in particular a worsening housing crisis by slowing down investments.

An insufficient tax gain?

The examination of article 24 by the Senate was ultimately only due to the overall rejection of the text of the PLF 2025 by the deputies, leading the senators to decide on the basis of the initial text, in which the article therefore appeared. 24. And even if the senators seemed to be more favorable to such a measure, several voices were heard within it to denounce it, such as Emmanuel Capus, senator from Maine-et-Loire, mentioning a perfect example of“fiscal instability”. Others had also made themselves heard earlier in the year, when, during the examination by senators of the Le Meur law, they had rejected an equivalent measure, proposing the reintegration of depreciation in the calculation added value only for short-term furnished accommodation, arguing a lack of visibility as to the consequences of this measure.

These arguments could therefore be heard, upstream this time, and lead the new drafters of the project to abandon the measure, with a view to compromise, and in order to limit debate on the text. Unless in the meantime, the tax gain from such a measure, estimated by the rapporteur of the text in the Senate at 180 million eurosis ultimately deemed insufficient given the risk of worsening of the rental crisis that it could also cause.