Free staff tickets are no presumed abnormal management

Handing out free access to a company's own product is not, by itself, abnormal management.Legifrance In a 10 November 2026 ruling, the Conseil d'État's 9th and 10th chambers quashed corporate-tax reassessments imposed on the Fraispertuis City amusement park for free entry tickets given to staffLegifrance, ruling that such a practice causes no impoverishment in itselfLegifrance and can never be presumed to be a renonciation à recettesLegifrance — so the administration keeps the burden of proving abnormalityLegifrance.

The park had been audited on its corporate-tax results for the years ending in 2015 to 2017. Treating the free tickets as an abnormal-management waiver of receiptsLegifrance, the administration cut the deficit the company declared for the year ending in 2015Legifrance and charged extra corporate tax for the years ending in 2016 and 2017Legifrance by adding back products equal to the ticket price. Viewing the same sums as deemed distributed income, it added the article 1759 fine of the Code général des impôts at 100 % for not precisely identifying the beneficiariesLegifrance. The Nancy administrative tribunal rejected the company's challenge in October 2022; on appeal, Nancy discharged only the disputed VAT reminders and penalties in March 2025 and upheld the rest.

The Conseil d'État restates the combined articles 38 and 209 rule: taxable profit comes from operations of every kind except those alien, by object or terms, to normal managementLegifrance, and an abnormal act is one by which a company impoverishes itself for purposes alien to its interestLegifrance. The administration, which must not second-guess management choicesLegifrance, as a rule proves the facts supporting abnormalityLegifrance.

It then draws the line for own-product giveaways. Merely granting free enjoyment of a good or service whose sale is the company's business involves, in itself, no impoverishmentLegifrance, so it cannot count among the waivers of receipts regarded in principle as abnormal commercial managementLegifrance. The administration must therefore prove, under the general rule, that the practice is abnormalLegifrance — the company never has to prove it acted in its interestLegifrance. The appeal court did exactly the reverse, upholding the reassessment because the park had not shown a business purposeLegifrance; that reversal of the burden of proof is an error of lawLegifrance, and the ruling is annulled on the corporate-tax headLegifrance without examining the other pleas.

On the merits, the court finds the proof missing.Legifrance The record, seriously uncontested, shows the tickets went to employees, especially seasonal staff, to retain themLegifrance, while introducing the park to their families and lifting, on visits, turnover from products sold inside the park. Free tickets granted on those terms cannot be seen as impoverishment for purposes alien to the company's interest.Legifrance The 2015 declared deficit is restoredLegifrance and the 2016 and 2017 extra assessments with penalties are dischargedLegifrance.

Two limbs survive. The minister's fallback legal basis — articles 54 bis on booking fringe benefits and 111 c on occult remuneration — failsLegifrance because the adjustments added omitted products rather than disallowing deducted charges. But the article 1759 fine stands on independent grounds the appeal stated and the appeal does not challengeLegifrance: the park never disclosed the beneficiaries' identities under article 117Legifrance, so the tickets counted as occult benefits deemed distributedLegifrance. The costs claim under article L. 761-1 of the Code de justice administrative is refused because the State is not substantially the losing party.

Legal basis: Code général des impôts, articles 38 and 209 on abnormal management, 54 bis, 111 c, 117 and 1759 on distributed income and the fine, applied through Code de justice administrative, articles L. 821-2 on deciding the merits and L. 761-1 on costs.