The reintegration of depreciation in the calculation of the LMNP capital gain, enacted by the finance law for 2025 and applied since February 15, 2025, has reshuffled the cards of rental property taxation. We observe that this measure, combined with the restrictions imposed by the Le Meur law of November 19, 2024, on furnished tourist rentals, requires a rethink of the arbitration between tax regimes right from the acquisition phase.
Reintegration of LMNP Depreciation: Recalculate the Capital Gain Now
The mechanism is simple but its consequences are significant. Before February 2025, a non-professional furnished rental owner could account for the depreciation of the property, reduce their taxable BIC income, and then sell without these depreciations inflating the taxable capital gain. This double advantage no longer exists.
From now on, the deducted depreciations are reintegrated into the capital gain calculation base. Specifically, the acquisition price considered by the administration is reduced by the total of the depreciations applied. The gap with the sale price mechanically increases, along with the tax.
For an investor who has held a property for several years, the accumulated stock of depreciations can represent a significant fraction of the property’s value. We recommend having the impact quantified precisely before any decision to sell, particularly using the tools available on fiscal.immo, which allow for modeling different exit scenarios.
The most discussed strategy is to hold the property long enough to benefit from the allowances for duration of ownership, which eventually erase the capital gain. Total income tax exemption occurs after twenty-two years of ownership, and exemption from social contributions after thirty years. The question thus becomes patrimonial: the LMNP remains effective during the holding phase, but the exit requires careful planning.
Real BIC Regime vs Micro-BIC: The Arbitration is No Longer Done Blindly
The micro-BIC regime, with its flat-rate allowance, remains accessible below a certain revenue threshold. The Le Meur law has reduced this allowance for classified tourist rentals located outside tight zones. The real regime is more often than before the only rational choice.
Under the real regime, the deduction of expenses (loan interest, work, insurance, management fees, depreciation of the property and furniture) frequently results in a zero or even deficit tax result that can be carried forward to the BIC of subsequent years. The problem is that it is now necessary to integrate the cost of reintegration at resale into the projection.
The arbitration relies on three variables:
- The deductible expenses / gross rental income ratio. The higher this ratio (recent work, ongoing loan), the more the real generates annual tax savings.
- The planned holding horizon. An investor targeting a medium-term resale has an interest in limiting depreciations to contain future capital gains.
- The location of the property. In tight zones, furnished tourist rentals are subject to reinforced authorization constraints imposed by the Le Meur law, which may redirect towards traditional long-term rentals.
The Loc’Avantages scheme, which succeeded the old Cosse scheme, offers an alternative for those willing to cap rents in exchange for a tax reduction. Its attractiveness heavily depends on the differential between market rent and regulated rent in the targeted municipality.
SCI Subject to Corporate Tax and Dismemberment: Two Underestimated Wealth Management Levers
The SCI subject to corporate tax remains the most powerful vehicle for capitalizing rental income without immediately facing the taxation of individual income. Profits are taxed at the reduced corporate tax rate on the first tranche, then reinvested in new acquisitions without going through personal income tax.
The downside is known: upon exit, the capital gain is calculated on the net accounting value (after depreciations), without any allowance for the duration of ownership. The tax burden at the time of sale can be severe. This vehicle is therefore suitable for long-term holding strategies with planned transmission, not for investors who intend to frequently arbitrate.
The dismemberment of property (bare ownership / usufruct) provides a complementary lever. The bare owner removes the property from the IFI base during the duration of the dismemberment. Upon the extinction of the usufruct, they regain full ownership without additional transfer taxes. In SCPI, temporary dismemberment allows for the acquisition of discounted shares and receiving income over time, often with an implicit yield higher than the yield in full ownership.
IFI and Vacant Housing: Two Converging Constraints
The real estate wealth tax applies to net real estate assets exceeding the legal threshold. A project to transform the IFI into a tax on unproductive wealth circulated in 2026, but has not materialized at this stage. We recommend monitoring this development, as it would profoundly change the scope of taxable assets.
At the same time, an August 2026 decree sets the scope of a unified tax on vacant housing, applicable from January 1, 2027. Investors who keep properties unoccupied between two tenants or awaiting work will need to factor this additional cost into their profitability calculations.
MaPrimeRénov’ 2026 and Work Taxation: What Has Changed
MaPrimeRénov’ has been refocused on large-scale renovations starting in February 2026, and then tightened again in September 2026. Isolated works (replacement of a boiler alone, insulation of a wall without a bundle of works) are no longer eligible in most cases.
For an investor, this means that the property deficit remains the main tax lever to finance renovation works. In unfurnished rentals under the real regime, maintenance and improvement work expenses are deductible from rental income, and the excess can be offset against global income within the annual limit set by the general tax code. This mechanism has not been modified.
The articulation between public subsidies and tax deductions requires particular vigilance: amounts received under MaPrimeRénov’ must be deducted from declared expenses. Declaring the gross cost of works without subtracting the aid constitutes a frequent declaration error.
The combination of a purchase in a tight zone, a large-scale renovation program eligible for MaPrimeRénov’, and an unfurnished rental under the real regime can still produce a powerful tax effect, provided the order of deductions is respected and each item is documented with the administration.
