Apprentice: immediate termination possible for serious employer breaches
TheCourt of Cassation(social chamber, 15 April 2026, no. 26-70002) ruled on a practical question: can an apprentice who is the victim of serious employer breaches leave without respecting notice or referring to the mediator?
Answer: yes.Where employer breaches make continuation of the contract impossible, the apprentice may terminate immediately without:
- Observing the 5-day period to inform the employer;
- Referring to the mediator first;
- Observing the 7-day period before effective termination.
The termination is not treated as constructive dismissal, but the judge assesses the seriousness of the breaches and attribution of the termination.
For employers with apprentices:this is not an open door to capricious departures. The judge retains control over characterisation. But it means you must treat your apprentice as a full employee, as serious breaches can trigger immediate termination without notice with uncertain judicial outcome.
Job interview during sick leave: daily benefits may be reclaimed
Latest decision, handed down by theCivil Court of Cassation on 19 March 2026(no. 23-22531), concerning employees — but employers should know it to inform their teams.
An employee on sick leave attended a job interview without prior authorisation from the Health Insurance Fund. Result: the Fund reclaimeddaily benefitspaid during that period.
The Court confirms:travelling for a job interview is unauthorised activity. The Fund's failure to answer the insured person's questions about taking part in recruitment is not implicit authorisation. Fraudulent intent need not be proved.
In practice, an employee on sick leave wishing to look for work must explicitly request the Fund's agreement before any work-related travel.
Intra-group services: the tax authorities must prove excess (not you)
An important decision of theConseil d'État on 21 April 2026(no. 506209) clarifies a frequent source of friction on tax audits: who must prove what when fees paid between related companies are challenged?
The concrete case: a communications company had deducted from its result fees paid to two other group companies for commercial, marketing, IT, financial and administrative services. The tax authorities had deemed these amounts excessive and added them back to taxable profit.
The Conseil d'État recalls the rule:it is for the tax authorities to demonstrate concretely the abnormal or excessive nature of intra-group charges, not for the company to prove they are reasonable. Here, the authorities had relied on sector comparisons with a sample deemed too broad and insufficiently representative — which the judges rejected.
What this means for you: if you invoice services between companies you control,document carefully the reality and consideration for each service. That is your only obligation. The burden of proving excessiveness lies with the tax authorities, provided you can show services were actually rendered.
SCI: a cash advance without agreement may become taxable rental income
TheNantes Administrative Court of Appeal(14 April 2026) handed down a decision affecting all SCI shareholders with financial flows between the SCI and other group companies.
The facts: SCI partners challenged recharacterisation as rental income of a sum received from their company, which they presented as a simple cash advance repaid with interest. They produced bank statements and a lease linking the SARL to a third party.
The court upheld recharacterisation. Why? Because the taxpayers hadnot provedthat these sums were genuinely a cash advance, notably for lack of:
- Aformal cash advance agreementbetween the SCI and the SARL;
- Bank statementsshowing the real natureof financial flows;
- The lease cited had no direct bearing on qualification of the sums paid.
The lesson is simple:any cash advance between an SCI and a related company must be formalised in a written agreement, with traceable bank flows. Without that, the tax authorities may treat these sums as taxable rental income in the partners' hands.
Tax integration: a subsidiary can join a group without having closed its first year
A decision favourable to corporate groups, handed down by theMarseille CAA on 16 April 2026.
Reminder:tax integrationallows a parent company to consolidate subsidiaries' results (held at at least 95%) and thus offset some companies' losses against others' profits.
The tax authorities argued that newly created companies mustclose a first financial yearbefore joining an integrated tax group. They therefore challenged integration of two recent subsidiaries whose losses had been offset in the group's overall result.
The judges rejected this position: the General Tax Code sets only adeadline for formalising the integration agreement, not an obligation to close a first year beforehand. The authorities cannot add this condition by administrative doctrine.
The Conseil d'État's position on this point will be worth following, as the CAA decision goes against current administrative doctrine.
Main residence capital gain: low water and electricity use can cost you the exemption
A point of vigilance for owners selling their main residence after works or prolonged absence.
TheLyon CAA(29 April 2026) confirmed loss of capital gains exemption for a taxpayer who sold a property presented as main residence. The problem:water and electricity consumption recorded was particularly low, incompatible with habitual occupation.
The taxpayer produced fuel, chimney sweep and electricity bills, and even a bridging loan offer and home insurance. Insufficient for the judges, who also noted that:
- He had not occupied the home immediately after acquisition (works);
- He had not lived there during the winter before the sale.
The decision reminds us that tax returns and administrative elements — council tax, declared address, energy contracts —are not enough on their own. The authorities and judges look at abody of material evidence, notably actual consumption and concrete occupation of the property.
Doubtful debt provision: recovery action is essential
TheVersailles CAA(16 April 2026) refused deductibility of a provision made by a sofa retailer on a receivable from a client in financial difficulty.
The company had documented the client's difficulties: severe economic difficulties for several years, cessation of activity, abandonment of commercial premises, judgment rejecting indemnity claims. Despite this, the judges rejected the provision becauseno recovery action had been taken against the debtor.
Moreover, documents produced to establish the debt itself — notably absence of invoices and supporting accounting records — were deemed insufficient.
For a doubtful debt provision to be tax deductible, you must demonstratetwo things simultaneously: the reality of the debt AND proven risk of non-recovery, supported by concrete steps to obtain payment.
If any of these situations concerns you, now is the time to discuss it with your accountant or legal adviser before an audit or dispute forces you to.