Is this the perfect example of the false good idea? Since fall 2019, all individuals can take out a retirement savings plan (PER), a savings product that allows them to put aside for their old days. His disadvantage? In principle, this is a tunnel product, in other words, it is impossible to recover all or part of its capital before retirement. “In principle” Only, because cases of early unlocking are provided, in the event of death, disability, over -indebtedness. Or only rather painful scenarios, with the exception of one: you can also unlock your PER to finance the purchase of your main residence.
An argument of size to attract in particular young savers who could fear that this savings product will be blocked until their retirement, preventing them from any intermediate project, and in particular that of becoming owners. However, this possibility is to be handled with care, in particular so as not to increase your tax bill! It should be remembered that the PER also allows you to deduce – up to a certain ceiling – your payments for your taxable income. A tax reduction which therefore grants you an appreciable tax saving, but which can be swept away in the event of withdrawal (or “buyout”) to finance your real estate acquisition.
Be careful in the event of withdrawal of a substantial amount in “one shot”
Indeed“The acquisition of the main residence implies the withdrawal of a potentially important sum at once”Recalls Gilles Bellir, Managing Director of Placement-direct.fr. However, this important sum will be added to your taxable income of the year. “The risk is then to see your marginal tax rate (TMI) climb to a level higher than what was at the time of your deductible payments »adds our columnist. A very bad deal in short!
To illustrate this undesirable effect, let’s take two examples. In the first, a saver subscribes to a PER on which he pays a total of 40,000 euros in several times. With income of 70,000 euros per year, it is in TMI at 30% (which applies between 29,316 euros and 83,823 euros in income). Thus, out of these 40,000 euros in payment, its tax saving is 12,000 euros (40,000 x 30%). To make its real estate purchase, he decides to unlock his PER to withdraw all of the capital paid, that is to say 40,000 euros (we do not take into account any capital gains generated by this capital). This amount is therefore added to his taxable income, which goes from 70,000 to 110,000 euros
Thus, this saver changes for its part of income between 83,823 euros and 110,000 euros in the upper tranche, at 41%. This tranche applies to the 26,177 euros between 83,823 euros and 110,000 euros, a tax of 10,733 euros (26,177 x 41%), which is added to the 13,823 euros in the withdrawal imposed at 30%, or 4,147 euros in tax. In total, this saver will have to pay 14,879 euros income tax for this redemption, more than the 12,000 euros it had been able to save thanks to the tax advantage of the PER. Its tax loss therefore amounts to 2,879 euros.
It is necessary to limit its withdrawal to the amount which separates you from the higher taxation section
In order not to switch to the upper edge, you must therefore be careful not to remove too much from your PER. Take the example of the same saver, with the same income (70,000 euros) and the same payments (40,000 euros). To stay in the 30%tranche, its income from the year must – withdrawal including – remain under 83,823 euros. We therefore take this ceiling not to be exceeded from which we subtract its annual income (70,000 euros). We thus obtain 13,383 euros, which corresponds to the amount that it is possible to withdraw from his per and add to his income without switching to the 41%tranche. Of course, these 13,883 euros will be taxed at 30%, but that represents “only” 4,015 euros in tax For this takeover.
As we can see, so as not to risk paying more taxes you have saved, the withdrawal must be limited to a limited amount, insufficient here for a personal contribution. Therefore, “This freedom offered by PER should be used with tweezers. It must be considered as flexibility during the life of the contract and not as a heritage strategy during membership ”concludes Gilles Bellor.
