792 views
The sale and then the donation result in two taxes, that of the capital gain and then that of the gratuitous transfer tax. Since the donation erases the capital gain, the reverse chronology (donation-sale) is more fiscally interesting. And to maintain the free disposal of the funds, only the bare ownership is given. Example. The head of the company gives the bare ownership of the company to his children; the gratuitous transfer tax is due on the tax value of the bare ownership. In the deed of donation, it is specified that in the event of transfer of the company, the sale price will be subject to a quasi-usufruct. The company is sold: the parent sells the usufruct (capital gains tax); the children sell the bare ownership (the previous donation erased the capital gain). The parent donor who is the beneficiary of the quasi-usufruct uses the cash freely (the quasi-usufructuary alone has free disposal of the funds; he only has the obligation to return it upon his death). Abuse of tax law?