Lawyer for an international marriage contract Biarritz in the Basque Country

The tontine clause that must be inserted in the acquisition act, is often considered in the scope of the protection of the surviving spouse or the partner. This clause foresees that the owner of the goods shall be the survivor of the signatories of the tontine pact. Often it aims to avoid the application of the hereditary reserve to the death of the first of the spouses or partners. But pay attention to the tax system for those that are not married nor in civil unions. 

Alexandra Etasse, in charge of the International Department of ETASSE et Associes, will assist you in the settlement of international estates. She  will provide you with the best advice on the often complex problems related to the existence of foreign legal vehicles (such as trusts) or on questions of international taxation. To accomplish this, it may be necessary for our International Department to work with other lawyers specialising in foreign law. The International Department of the ETASSE et Associes law office will draft the legal and tax instruments (act of notoriety, succession declaration, deed of partition, etc.)

Alexandra Etasse, in charge of the International Department of Etasse et Associés will assist you in estate planning, since internationally it can be even more important than in a national context; to hand down your estate properly, it is necessary to plan and control how it is transferred. In addition, Alexandra Etasse will advise you on the best way to anticipate the sometimes complex problems related to the existence of foreign legal vehicles (for instance, trusts), international tax issues, or your desire to protect your spouse or your heirs. We will prepare the deeds of transfer of your property. 

  Yes, both members of a separated couple can benefit from the exemption in respect of the sale of the principal residence even if one member of the couple continues to live in the property. The exemption is subject to the fact that the property really was the couple's principal residence until the time of separation and that it subsequently continues to be the main residence of one member of the couple. 

The Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 provides for various cases of automatic change in matrimonial regime merely because of a change of residence. We often talk about "involuntary" change of matrimonial regime, of "time bomb" and of "unsafe" automatic mutability because many spouses are unaware that they have changed their matrimonial regime simply by having moved. What is more, when spouses do become aware of the situation, it is often too late. This automatic mutability can present considerable difficulties in determining the property owned by each spouse, particularly in the context of an estate or divorce settlement. This risk is a real one for all spouses married after 1 September 1992 and who did not sign a prenuptial contract before their wedding or specify under which law they married. For them, the law on habitual residence will replace the previously applicable law in three situations: *When the couple set their new habitual residence in the territory of the State of which they are both nationals. In this case the spouses are automatically and immediately subject to the law of that State. (Example: two French nationals had settled in England after their marriage in 1994. No marriage contract had been signed. If they return to settle in France, they will automatically be subject to French law and therefore the legal regime of community of aquests (limited to assets acquired after the marriage). *When the couple establish their habitual residence for at least 10 years in a country different from that of their first marital residence. In this situation, from the 11th year, the law of the State where the spouses have their habitual residence will replace the law previously applicable. * If the spouses were previously subject to their common national law in the absence of common residence in the same State at the time of marriage. However, it is necessary that the State of nationality has not made a declaration in favour of the national law. (Example: two Moroccan spouses were married in Morocco in 1995, without a prenuptial contract prior to their marriage. The husband was already working in France and returned there to live after the wedding while his wife remained in Morocco. In the absence of a common habitual residence, the spouses were therefore subject to Moroccan law and separation of property. When the wife came to join her husband in France, the couple automatically became subject to the French legal regime of community of acquests (limited to assets acquired after the marriage). ) To avoid the difficulties entailed by this automatic change of matrimonial regime, it is strongly recommended, in an international context, to have a marriage contract drawn up in presence of a notary in order to fix the choice of matrimonial regime. To this end, Ms. Alexandra ETASSE, in charge of the International Department of the Etasse et Associés law office, will advise and assist you in choosing the matrimonial regime best suited to your situation. 

          The application of social charges to capital gains realised by non-residents is currently the subject of a procedure against the French State. The French Council of State (“Conseil d’Etat”) has also referred a question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on whether these social charges can be levied on persons not benefiting from the scheme that these contributions are intended to fund. To date, the issue of the payment of social charges by non-residents is still not fully resolved. However, it would appear that the Direction générale des finances publiques (the French Department of Public Revenue) has communicated guidelines to its regional branches with a view to ensuring that the Land Registry Office and local tax offices should no longer require the payment of social charges in the situations covered by the ECJ case law of February 2015 and that of the Council of State of July 2015. It would therefore seem that in the current state of the law, sales of real estate undertaken by taxpayers from a social security scheme of another Member State of the EEA will not entail the payment of social charges. However, it is necessary for the taxpayer in question to provide evidence to their notary of their affiliation to a social security scheme in a foreign Member State of the EU or EEA, by means of either a social security card or a certificate of affiliation.