Cum‑cum: the tax paragraph withdrawn after 98 days

The cum-cum investigation, part 5

On 24 July 2025, France’s finance ministry removed a disputed paragraph of guidance on dividend-arbitrage transactions on regulated markets. It had been published on 17 April, 98 days earlier. For taxpayers who had followed that interpretation, withdrawal left a separate question: the protection available when the tax authority later examines their transactions. In January 2026, the Conseil d’État explained why formally published guidance can still protect earlier transactions, subject to statutory conditions. S05 S06 S07

This episode reveals a less visible part of the cum-cum story. The ability to tax dividend-related transactions depends on legislative wording, the definition of a transfer of value and the protection available to taxpayers who follow official guidance. The documents need to be read in sequence and on their own terms. Advice to the government, an enacted statute, administrative guidance and a court judgment perform different functions.

The statutory limit behind the 2023 annulment

On 8 December 2023, the French Banking Federation secured the annulment of guidance issued earlier that year. The tax authority had interpreted article 119 bis as allowing dividend withholding tax where the beneficial owner was abroad, even though the person legally entitled to the distribution was resident in France. The Conseil d’État held that this reading went beyond the statute then in force. Administrative interpretation had exceeded the authority granted by Parliament. S01

That distinction matters when an overseas investor temporarily transfers shares to a French financial institution around a dividend. Legal entitlement to the distribution can be separated from the investor’s continuing economic interest. Looking through the French holder required an appropriate legal basis. The judgment expressly preserved the specific anti-abuse provision in article 119 bis A and the abuse-of-law procedure for challenging abusive interposition. It concerned the legality of guidance, rather than a bank’s criminal liability. S01

The specific provision also contained a time condition. The transactions it enumerated had to occur within a period of fewer than 45 days that included the date on which entitlement to the dividend arose. The government later identified this boundary as a weakness. In a proposed amendment filed in November 2024, it argued that the limit was readily circumvented. That is an official explanation for legislative reform, rather than a count of transactions established through investigations. S01 S02

Beneficial ownership and transfers of value under the 2025 Act

Article 96 of the Finance Act dated 14 February 2025 expressly inserted beneficial ownership into article 119 bis. It also rewrote article 119 bis A. The first change helps identify the person who actually benefits from the income. The second treats specified payments or transfers of value as distributions, even where the contractual form places distance between the payment and the original dividend. S04

Consider a hypothetical transaction in which the economic value of a dividend reaches an overseas investor through several contracts. Identifying that investor answers the question of destination. A further question concerns the character of the amount received. It might be presented as a loan-related payment or embedded in a transaction price. The Conseil d’État explained this distinction in its advisory opinion of 27 January 2025. Depending on the circumstances, both statutory provisions must operate together. S03

Method and scope

S03, paragraphs 3–6 and 11–15; S04, article 96-I: conceptual diagram of articles 119 bis and 119 bis A as amended in 2025. Arrows describe an illustrative legal mechanism, without amounts or identification of actual transactions.

The revised legislation covers temporary share transfers, return or resale obligations and certain instruments with an economic effect similar to owning the shares. Combinations of transactions are also covered. The fewer-than-45-days condition was removed from this mechanism. Alongside the wider scope, a safeguard allows evidence that a transaction mainly has a purpose and effect other than obtaining a tax advantage or avoiding withholding. The payer can also provide that evidence. S04

The safeguard serves a genuine economic purpose. Share exposure, risk hedging and financing can meet commercial needs. In its opinion, the Conseil d’État sought to reconcile action against abusive arrangements with the ability to demonstrate a transaction’s legitimate character. Treating every trade near a dividend as taxable without testing the statutory conditions would erase that distinction. S03

Timing is as important as contractual form. The tax guidance states that the new subsection I of article 119 bis A applies to payments made from 16 February 2025. For transactions making up a transfer of value, the relevant date is when agreement on the subject matter and price is reached. A cash flow paid after that date may therefore require examination of earlier agreements. Investigators need the history of commitments as well as the payment record. S06

The exception the government had proposed

The disagreement had already appeared in the legislative record. Government sub-amendment I-2272, filed on 28 November 2024 and recorded by the Senate as rejected, proposed removing the beneficial-owner addition and concentrating the reform in the anti-abuse provision. Its explanatory statement warned of conflicting interpretations and litigation. It simultaneously acknowledged the need to strengthen a mechanism whose existing scope was too narrow. S02

The proposal also envisaged an exclusion for transactions negotiated under normal conditions on a regulated market where the circumstances deprived the payer of any ability to know the recipient’s residence. The information problem was therefore placed before Parliament in a government proposal. Its rejection and the wording ultimately enacted are verifiable events. The final statute does not contain the general exclusion in the form proposed. S02 S04

The sequence deserves more than a comparison of similar phrases. The sub-amendment proposed a statutory rule with several conditions. The January opinion interpreted the scope of proposed legislation. April’s guidance then explained implementation. The recurrence of an information concern across the documents establishes continuity in the debate. The precise legal reach of each formulation remains a separate question.

The strongest case for administrative clarification is substantial: a withholding agent needs to understand which duties it can perform using the information actually available. The competing concern is how that claimed information gap is verified. Where liability depends on knowing the counterparty, the inquiry must reach back to earlier negotiations rather than stop at the transaction’s final form. Both sides of the problem appear in the Conseil d’État’s opinion. S03

Counterparty knowledge before market execution

On 27 January 2025, the Conseil d’État was acting as the government’s legal adviser, a role distinct from its function as France’s highest administrative court. Its opinion explained that the internal mechanism did not require preventive withholding when the conditions for taxation were absent. It discussed transactions where the payer could not know the counterparty’s tax residence or determine the relevant economic effect. This was the protective side of the reasoning. S03

The following paragraph supplied the qualification. When the statutory conditions are satisfied, the payer must withhold, including where a transaction has been negotiated over the counter before being executed on a regulated market. The opinion called for objective evidence. Pricing or margin conditions could contribute to a body of indications, alongside other evidence and through an individual examination. S03

Two transactions executed on the same market can therefore have quite different histories. In one, parties genuinely meet without knowing one another. In another, they have reached an agreement before execution. This is an illustrative comparison derived from the legal issue in the opinion, rather than a description of any named bank’s conduct. Orders, negotiations and contracts become important evidence of what the payer knew.

Method and scope

S03, paragraphs 12–13: the payer’s information limits must be read with the obligation to withhold when the statutory conditions apply, including transactions negotiated over the counter before market execution. Pricing or margin evidence belongs to an individual examination. No actual actor is depicted.

The statute itself provides for information gathering. On request, the administration can obtain the amounts and dates of flows, the issuer’s identity and the beneficiary’s identity. Where the beneficiary cannot be identified, the legislation requires information needed to establish residence. Parliament had therefore incorporated identification difficulties into the control framework. That duty alone cannot establish what evidence will be available in an individual investigation. S04

April’s guidance and the July withdrawal

On 17 April 2025, Bercy, the shorthand for France’s finance ministry, published a general tax ruling explaining the new provisions. Paragraph 4 stated that, for relevant transactions on a regulated market, preventive withholding was not required if the payer actually did not know its counterparty. It expressly referred to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the January opinion. S05

The qualification matters. The condition was an actual lack of knowledge. Market execution, considered in isolation, could not establish that the payer met the terms of the guidance. The document also preserved the application of abuse-of-law rules. Reading it as an exemption for every regulated-market transaction would extend the published wording. S05

There was nevertheless an asymmetry in the explanation. The paragraph spelled out the circumstances in which preventive withholding could be avoided. The obligation concerning transactions negotiated beforehand appeared in the opinion to which it referred. This is an observation from comparing the documents. It does not determine whether the paragraph was unlawful or how many transactions may have relied on it.

On 19 June 2025, Le Monde reported senator Jean-François Husson’s allegations of banking influence following his inspection at Bercy, alongside the ministry’s denial. The internal documents he cited were not obtained for this investigation. S12

The disagreement also reached the public parliamentary record. Answering Husson in the Senate on 25 June, finance minister Éric Lombard defended the need to clarify the rules and preserve access to market finance. He acknowledged retaining a disputed clarification against his administration’s advice, while contesting Husson’s description of advice against publishing the entire text. Their exchange documents a ministerial choice and opposing accounts of its justification. S14

The industry gave its own account at a parliamentary hearing on 8 July. Maya Atig, chief executive of the French Banking Federation, described its interventions as transparent requests for legal clarity. She argued for distinguishing legitimate market activities from transactions serving only a tax purpose and subject to anti-fraud scrutiny. These are the federation’s stated reasons for its involvement, alongside Husson’s criticism and the minister’s defence. S15

The open record therefore establishes the proposal, its rejection, the opinion, the guidance, the withdrawal and the public arguments made by the participants. A 2026 Senate report presents that withdrawal as a result of parliamentary scrutiny. This is the finance committee’s assessment of its own intervention. Attributing particular wording to a financial institution or industry submission would require the underlying papers, successive drafts and exchanges with decision-makers. S02 S03 S05 S06 S14 S15 S16

The paragraph was removed on 24 July 2025. The French Banking Federation’s reaction, as reported by Le Monde, emphasised legal certainty and the attractiveness of Paris as a financial centre. Withdrawal itself is directly established by the official guidance archive. S13 S06

The remaining guidance survived and its sections were renumbered. The new paragraph 4 now addresses exemptions for certain collective investment undertakings and sovereign funds. Comparing two provisions simply because both carry the number 4 would give a misleading account of the revision. The documents must be fixed to particular versions and compared by subject. The embedded reader below pairs the changes with their sources and limitations.

l0g / THE DOCUMENTS

The texts side by side

Open a topic to compare the dated versions. Each panel links to the original documents.

Beneficial ownership enters the statuteArticle 119 bis: a statutory change

08.12.2023

The law then applicable

The court rejects adding a general beneficial-owner look-through by guidance when the dividend entitlement belongs to a French resident. Anti-abuse routes are preserved.

[S01]

14.02.2025

Parliament changes the statute

Article 96 expressly inserts beneficial ownership into article 119 bis. Identifying that person and characterising a value transfer remain separate questions.

[S04][S03]

The legislative amendment does not automatically reclassify earlier transactions.

The scope of value transfersArticle 119 bis A: scope of the specific mechanism

BEFORE 2025

Fewer than 45 days

Under the version quoted in the 2023 judgment, the period had to include the date dividend entitlement arose. Other legal grounds for scrutiny could remain available.

[S01]

14.02.2025

Combinations and instruments

The rewritten provision removes that limit and covers instruments with an economic effect similar to share ownership. Statutory conditions and the safeguard still matter.

[S04]

Dividend timing or the use of a derivative alone does not establish abuse.

Market anonymity and withholdingThree documents with different legal functions

28.11.2024

Rejected government proposal

I-2272 proposes a conditional market exclusion where residence cannot be known. The Senate records the sub-amendment as rejected.

[S02]

27.01.2025

Opinion: read paragraphs 12 and 13 together

Information limits are considered. Transactions negotiated beforehand over the counter remain subject to withholding where statutory conditions are met.

[S03]

17.04.2025

Guidance: actual lack of knowledge

Paragraph 4 describes the absence of preventive withholding when the payer actually does not know its counterparty. It expressly refers to both opinion paragraphs.

[S05]

The comparison establishes wording differences; it is neither a legality ruling nor proof of who influenced the drafting.

Withdrawal and paragraph renumberingVersions under the same BOFiP identifier

17.04.2025

Former paragraph 4

Clarification concerning transactions on a regulated market.

[S05]

24.07.2025

Deletion and renumbering

The clarification disappears. New paragraph 4 concerns exemptions for investment undertakings and sovereign funds; the rest of the guidance remains.

[S06]

Matching paragraph numbers alone would conflate different subjects. The dated version is part of the reference.

Reliance on guidance and abuse of lawTwo judgments addressing complementary questions

20.01.2026

The article L. 80 A guarantee

Subject to conditions, the taxpayer may rely on guidance published when the transactions occurred, even after later annulment. The mootness ruling does not decide substantive legality.

[S07]

28.10.2020

General case law on article L. 64

Objective proof of an artificial, substance-free arrangement with an exclusively tax-avoidance purpose can defeat reliance on guidance. This case was unrelated to cum-cum.

[S08]

Facts and the conditions for each legal ground still require examination; this card determines no tax liability.

Effective dates of the internal and external mechanismsEffective dates and publication of guidance

16.02.2025

Internal mechanism, subsection I

The relevant single payment or agreement on the subject matter and price of value-transfer transactions, as explained in the guidance.

[S06]

01.01.2026 / 16.03.2026

External mechanism, subsection II

Effective from 1 January 2026; guidance published on 16 March 2026. Withholding followed by a conditional refund in specified treaty situations.

[S04][S10][S11]

The dispute over April 2025 paragraph 4 concerned the internal mechanism.

Rephrased for readability. The cited texts, their dates and their legal functions determine the scope of each comparison.

Reliance on guidance after its withdrawal

There were 98 elapsed days between publication and withdrawal. ADELIBE, the association that brought the challenge, filed its application on 11 June 2025: 55 days after publication and 43 days before deletion. These calculations locate the challenge within the paragraph’s published life. They count elapsed calendar days, excluding the starting day; they provide no measure of transaction volumes or tax losses. S05 S06 S07

Method and scope

Civil-date differences, without double-counting endpoints: 17 April to 11 June 2025 = 55 days; 11 June to 24 July = 43 days; total = 98 days. S05 and S06 date the versions; S07 dates registration of ADELIBE’s application. The figure measures publication of the deleted paragraph alone; the amounts and transactions potentially affected remain to be established.

On 20 January 2026, the Conseil d’État ruled that there was no longer a need to decide the annulment claim in the circumstances it described. For the future, deletion had ended the contested interpretation. For earlier periods, a statutory guarantee could protect a taxpayer who had complied with formally published guidance, subject to its conditions. Even a later judicial annulment would have left that protection available. S07

The guarantee comes from article L. 80 A of the tax procedure code. It addresses a basic problem of legal certainty. The administration publishes an interpretation; a taxpayer carries out a transaction in accordance with it. The authority then faces a limit on demanding additional tax by advancing a different reading. The Conseil d’État explained that the guarantee can apply even where the administrative interpretation adds to the legislation or contradicts it, provided that the person relying on it satisfies its terms and the relevant legal conditions. S07

The court expressly left substantive legality unresolved. The decision closed the challenge without endorsing the April wording on its merits. Nor did it award an identified tax benefit to a particular bank. It did establish why withdrawal can leave consequences for earlier transactions. That practical effect requires a distinction between correcting a published text and determining the resulting tax liabilities. S07

Evidence required to establish abuse of law

The guarantee has a limit of its own. In a full-bench decision dated 28 October 2020, concerning a case unrelated to cum-cum, the Conseil d’État explained how the administration can challenge artificial reliance on guidance. Under the test described in that judgment, it must establish through objective evidence an artificial arrangement lacking substance and pursuing the sole aim of avoiding or reducing tax. The abuse-of-law procedure in article L. 64 can then be used against the arrangement. S08

For the 2025 controversy, the investigation starts with the transaction itself and the precise wording on which the taxpayer relies. Earlier negotiations may establish the payer’s knowledge of its counterparty. Contracts and other evidence may also establish an artificial arrangement under the case law. The result depends on those facts as well as on the text that was published. S05 S07 S08

Method and scope

S07, paragraphs 4–9: conditional protection under L. 80 A and mootness following withdrawal. S08, paragraph 6: general case law, unrelated to cum-cum, on an artificial, substance-free arrangement with an exclusively tax purpose, established through objective evidence under L. 64. The diagram explains the rules’ interaction without determining any individual assessment.

The Ministry for Public Action and Accounts relied on that route in its response published by the Senate on 15 October 2026. It stated that transactions preceding withdrawal remained open to investigation and that the protection against changes in guidance would not apply where an artificial arrangement constituting an abuse of law was established. The ministry was setting out its enforcement position, drawing on the general principle expressed in 2020. Success in a particular case depends on the evidence produced. S09 S08

The response also reports €4.5 billion in additional tax notified following earlier cum-cum adjustments based on abuse of law. This is the ministry’s account of past enforcement. The figure measures notified tax adjustments, with no breakdown of cash collected or of transactions relying on the April 2025 paragraph. Assigning it to those 98 days would invent a causal link that the response leaves unestablished. S09

Measuring that effect would require knowing which transactions invoked the paragraph, where its conditions were accepted, which assessments were abandoned or upheld and how the relevant final decisions turned out. Aggregated data separating those categories would already help. The documents assembled here do not supply that account. A potentially usable legal protection and a quantified budgetary cost require different levels of evidence.

Treaty exemptions and the withholding procedure introduced in 2026

The Finance Act of 14 February 2025 deferred the new subsection II of article 119 bis A until 1 January 2026. Guidance published on 16 March 2026 explains the mechanism for specified treaty-exemption situations: collect withholding, then allow a refund when the required conditions are established. Publication of the explanation and the legal start date are therefore several weeks apart. S04 S10 S11

The treaty mechanism has its own scope and needs to be assessed separately from the 2025 guidance dispute. For that earlier dispute, the documents establish a substantial widening of the statutory basis for scrutiny, followed by a contested paragraph that remained public for 98 days. Withdrawal ended the published interpretation for the future. Earlier transactions require examination of the protection available under article L. 80 A and, where relevant, the evidence of abuse. S04 S07 S08

Public accountability now turns on the records behind the published decisions and on the outcome of tax assessments. Access to submissions, draft versions and exchanges would help trace how particular choices were made. An account distinguishing reliance on guidance, challenges for abuse and sums ultimately collected would show their practical consequences. The documents assembled here establish the sequence of decisions and the conditions each one set. Completing that record would allow a firmer assessment of their effect on the state’s ability to collect tax.

Scope of this investigation

Documentary research cut off on 27 October 2026. Official texts are distinguished from ministerial positions and allegations reported in the press. No new interviews or requests for comment were conducted. The internal papers mentioned by the press and individual tax files were not obtained. Figures illustrate legal mechanisms rather than classifying particular transactions. The embedded comparison paraphrases documents for readability and links to the originals.

Earlier instalments

• The dividend mechanism.
• Warnings before the scandal.
• Estimated tax losses and recoveries.
• Accountability in court.

Sources

The notices distinguish historical texts, court decisions and the participants’ attributed positions.

1. S01 · Conseil d’État · 2023-12-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Décision n° 472587, Fédération bancaire française
   Passages and scope

   Reasons concerning articles 119 bis and 119 bis A, the L. 64 procedure, and the operative part.

   The court annulled guidance that added a general beneficial-owner test to the then applicable statute. The specific anti-abuse provision and abuse-of-law procedure remained available. Official reasons read; the judgment concerns the legality of guidance under the former statute, rather than any bank’s criminal liability.

2. S02 · Sénat / Gouvernement · 2024-11-28 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Sous-amendement I-2272 au projet de loi de finances pour 2025
   Passages and scope

   Items 1 and 6 of the proposed amendment; explanatory statement on beneficial ownership and regulated markets; recorded rejection.

   Government proposal to remove the beneficial-owner addition and introduce a conditional regulated-market exclusion. The date is the filing date; the Senate page records rejection. A proposed government amendment, not an enacted rule. The filing date and its rejected status are recorded separately.

3. S03 · Conseil d’État, formation consultative · 2025-01-27 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Avis n° 409218 sur les opérations d’arbitrage de dividende
   Passages and scope

   Paragraphs 3–6, 11–13 and 15; opinion on proposed legislation.

   Advice on proposed legislation, not a judicial ruling. Paragraphs 12 and 13 pair actual information limits with scrutiny of transactions negotiated before market execution. Consultative advice on a draft, distinct from a judgment. Paragraphs 12 and 13 must be read together.

4. S04 · Légifrance / Journal officiel · 2025-02-14 ; JO 2025-02-15 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Loi n° 2025-127 du 14 février 2025, article 96
   Passages and scope

   Article 96, I-A, I-B items 1–7 and II; statute dated 14 February, published 15 February 2025.

   Amends articles 119 bis and 119 bis A, including value transfers and information duties. The new subsection II of article 119 bis A applies from 1 January 2026. Official statutory text read through the public legal source. This article compares the historical wording introduced in 2025.

5. S05 · DGFiP / BOFiP · 2025-04-17 ; fin de publication 2025-07-24 · Accessed: 2026-10-27BOI-RES-RPPM-000203, version du 17 avril 2025
   Passages and scope

   Former paragraph 4, the other clarifications and the final reservation concerning abuse of law.

   The contested paragraph required the payer actually not to know its counterparty and cited paragraphs 12 and 13 of the January opinion. It must be read with the remaining guidance and the statute. Dated historical guidance read. The regulated-market condition applies to actual lack of counterparty knowledge, with a reservation concerning abuse of law.

6. S06 · DGFiP / BOFiP · 2025-07-24 · Accessed: 2026-10-27BOI-RES-RPPM-000203, version du 24 juillet 2025
   Passages and scope

   Paragraphs 3–10, particularly the new paragraph 4, paragraph 9 and paragraph 10.

   The regulated-market paragraph was removed and later sections renumbered. New paragraph 4 concerns funds. Paragraph 9 explains the 16 February 2025 effective date for payments and agreed value-transfer transactions. Dated revised guidance read. Only the disputed paragraph was removed; remaining sections were renumbered.

7. S07 · Conseil d’État · 2026-01-20 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Décision n° 505127, ADELIBE
   Passages and scope

   Paragraphs 3–9 and the application recorded on 11 June 2025.

   The challenge became moot after withdrawal. The ruling explains the protection for earlier transactions under article L. 80 A; it decides neither the paragraph’s substantive legality nor an individual assessment. Official judgment read. A finding of mootness does not decide substantive legality or an individual tax assessment.

8. S08 · Conseil d’État, Assemblée · 2020-10-28 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Décision n° 428048
   Passages and scope

   Paragraph 6, read with the facts and context in paragraphs 1–5.

   General case law unrelated to cum-cum. Article L. 64 can defeat reliance on guidance where objective evidence establishes an artificial, substance-free arrangement with an exclusively tax-avoidance purpose under the ruling’s test. A general case unrelated to cum-cum. Applying its test to a particular arrangement requires objective evidence.

9. S09 · Sénat / Ministère de l’action et des comptes publics · Question 2026-02-26 ; réponse 2026-10-15 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Question écrite n° 07856 et réponse sur les arbitrages de dividendes
   Passages and scope

   Government answer published on 15 October 2026, distinguished from the assertions in the question.

   The ministry invokes abuse of law for pre-withdrawal transactions. Its €4.5 billion figure concerns historical notified tax adjustments, with no allocation to April–July 2025. Official answer read. The €4.5bn refers to historical notified adjustments, with no matching allocation to April–July 2025 or total cash collection.

10. S10 · DGFiP / BOFiP · 2026-03-16 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Actualité : dispositif de retenue à la source sur les opérations de cum-cum externe
    Passages and scope

    Notice introducing external cum-cum guidance and identifying its effective date.

    Guidance published on 16 March 2026 for a mechanism effective from 1 January 2026. The year inside the page identifier is not its publication date. Official notice read. Its publication date is 16 March 2026 despite the 2025 identifier; the mechanism applies from 1 January.

11. S11 · DGFiP / BOFiP · 2026-03-16 · Accessed: 2026-10-27BOI-INT-DG-20-20-20-30, dispositif anti-abus des conventions fiscales
    Passages and scope

    Opening provisions, scope and the withholding/refund mechanism.

    Withholding in specified treaty-exemption situations, followed by a conditional refund. This is the external limb, distinct from the 2025 dispute over subsection I of article 119 bis A. Selected provisions of the official guidance read. The external limb has a separate scope from the 2025 regulated-market controversy.

12. S12 · Le Monde, Les Décodeurs · 2025-06-19 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Fraude CumCum : les banques accusées d’avoir influencé Bercy pour affaiblir la loi
    Passages and scope

    Attributed allegations and the ministry’s response in the available reporting.

    Limited use for attributed allegations and responses; no independent access to the internal documents mentioned. Available extracts and reporting only; the internal documents discussed were not obtained. No new interview or request for comment.

13. S13 · Le Monde, Les Décodeurs · 2025-07-24 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Lutte anti-CumCum : Eric Lombard désamorce une crise politique en supprimant une instruction fiscale
    Passages and scope

    The banking federation’s reaction as reported by the newspaper.

    Used only for an attributed industry reaction; withdrawal itself is established by primary sources. Available indexed reporting only; an original federation statement of 24 July was not obtained. No verbatim quote is reproduced.

14. S14 · Sénat / Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de la souveraineté industrielle et numérique · Séance 2025-06-25 ; publication JO 2025-06-26 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Question d’actualité n° 0438G : dispositif de lutte contre la fraude aux arbitrages de dividendes
    Passages and scope

    Husson question and Lombard answer delivered on 25 June 2025; official publication on 26 June, p. 7078. Consultation and retention of the disputed clarification.

    Primary parliamentary exchange. Husson describes advice against publication; Lombard distinguishes the whole guidance from the disputed clarification, which he says he retained against his administration’s advice. He invokes clarification and access to market finance. Official record of public statements, rather than the underlying internal papers. Allegations and justifications remain attributed to the speakers.

15. S15 · Assemblée nationale, commission des finances / Fédération bancaire française · 2025-07-08 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Audition de Maya Atig et Étienne Barel, Fédération bancaire française, compte rendu n° 138
    Passages and scope

    Hearing on 8 July 2025 at 18:30; Atig’s opening account of the federation’s role, requests for clarification and dealings with Bercy, followed by answers about systemic fraud.

    Atig presents the federation’s interventions as open and transparent work to clarify the legal framework. She distinguishes legitimate market activities from transactions serving only a tax purpose and requiring anti-fraud scrutiny. The hearing supplies the federation’s own account. Primary evidence of the industry federation’s position, not independent confirmation of each transaction’s legality or of its precise influence on drafting. Unrelated financial figures in the hearing are not reused.

16. S16 · Sénat, rapport d’information de Sylvie Vermeillet ; commission des finances · 2026-06-26 · Accessed: 2026-10-27Bilan annuel de l’application des lois au 31 mars 2026, rapport n° 802 (2025–2026)
    Passages and scope

    Part two, Finance Committee, CumCum section, subsection (2) on the conflict between Parliament and the government over implementation: draft guidance, Senate objections, inspection on 19 June, presentation on 23 June 2025 and withdrawal on 24 July.

    The report records the Finance Committee’s findings and assessments, including clarification requests by the FBF and reservations attributed to the tax administration. These parliamentary positions require attribution and are distinct from a judicial finding or direct access to internal papers. The CumCum section of the public report was read online. Other parts of the report and the internal Bercy papers it discusses were not read. This is a primary source for the committee’s account and assessments, rather than independent confirmation of every industry contribution.