4 ms·

Here it is, from a French article: > Les loueurs de meublés touristiques classés (de 1 à 5 étoiles), comme Airbnb, bénéficient aujourd’hui d’un abattement forf

by gniv 3y ago

Here it is, from a French article: > Les loueurs de meublés touristiques classés (de 1 à 5 étoiles), comme Airbnb, bénéficient aujourd’hui d’un abattement forfaitaire de 71 % jusqu’à 176 200 euros de recettes, contre 50 % pour les meublés classiques, et 30 % pour les locations vides dans la limite de 15 000 euros de loyers. Basically if they don't make a ton of money they can deduct 71% of gross revenue (otherwise they deduct expenses and depreciation, which is probably less than 50%). I suspect this was put in place way back to encourage gîtes (b&bs), which are popular in France.

Veedrac 3y ago
Which raises the obvious point that a specifically carved out exception for a good on the basis of its assumed positive externalities is not a ‘loophole’. It is at most a subsidy. (Though, obviously, not enough of one. Land ownership should be taxed but land rental should be untaxed, as a quick glimpse at the market incentive structures will inform. Taxing revenue is insane.)
- maeln 3y ago
  I think it is a usual case of "This is why we can't have nice things". The "loophole" was created for a reason and then it got abused to a point of becoming its own issue.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  When you write down rules by which you can take money for free from other people, any rule that means they don't have to give you money is, whether you call it a loophole or not, not a problem. Write your free money rules better.
  - Retric 3y ago
    That would apply if governments were simply bandits providing nothing of value. Instead, governments provide many extremely valuable services. So, people rightly complain about free riders benefiting from the services which other taxpayers need to pay for without chipping in.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      The fact is that the government, like a bandit, says to a person: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon them from the road side, and, holding a pistol to their head, proceed to rifle their pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The bandit takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes people’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. --Lysander Spooner
      - sofixa 3y ago
        (on libertrarians) House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appeciate or understand. -- John Spaulding
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Cats are quite capable of subsisting on squirrels and birds. But if you put cat food on a plate, they do what's easier. The question is, does "free" stuff justify its true cost? How many people would willingly pay the amount they currently pay to Raytheon or upper middle class retirees with plenty of savings, if they actually had a choice?
- simiones 3y ago
  I think the loophole is that Airbnb is profiting massively by renting all of these properties, but each property owner individually is not making significant profits. I would guess the intention is to tax Airbnb appropriately as one of the biggest hotel services out there, without affecting actual independent BnBs.
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    > I think the loophole is that Airbnb is profiting massively by renting all of these properties, but each property owner individually is not making significant profits. While I do think that the government would like more tax revenue from AirBnB and other "foreign tech", I think that in touristy areas property owners are making a killing. Aside from the "loophole" discussed here, another one is that, for example in Paris, these rentals aren't covered by the rent control laws. So even though you need to put in a bit more work for short stays compared to long ones, you're practically guaranteed a good occupation rate for your apartment and can cash in on the much higher rate you can charge. I don't know how true this is, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction by locals, but it would seem that in other touristy places there's been an influx in "holiday-rentals" pushing locals who can't afford the rising prices out of the market. These areas have more of a season effect (think seaside resorts, only popular in the summer). So, the way they "measured" it was that during the low season people would find rentals, but no-one would want a long-term contract covering the high-season, when all the properties would be put on the short-term market. Another regulation which these rentals can side-step is having to provide an apartment with a certain minimum "energy grade". The goal of the scheme was to push landlords to improve the insulation of their properties to lower heating costs (broadly speaking). The issue is that rents being fixed, this had to come fully out of the landlord's pocket. Which, of course, they'd rather avoid. Bonus points for having to add this insulation on the inside, which reduces the area of the property, so the rent they can ask. This is compounded in "tense" markets, such as Paris, by the fact that many of the flats are concerned by this, or will soon be.
- comte7092 3y ago
  A loophole is when something is used for something other than its intended purpose. France wanted to subsidize b&bs, Airbnb, despite its name, doesn’t actually provide b&bs as a significant part of its business.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    In this case it is used exactly for its intended purpose, which is to encourage furnished holiday lets. AirBnb does not directly benefit from this. The property owners do. The issue is that the number of holiday lets has exploded thanks to AirBnb so now they no longer want to encourage them, or at least not the purely AirBnb type.
    - csomar 3y ago
      It is another tax but without the tax label. Now we call it "Closing a loophole for the greedy Tech companies".
  - Veedrac 3y ago
    If true that's even more convoluted than I would have guessed. And I agree with the other comment; if you want to subsidize b&bs but you instead subsidize furnished rentals, it's on you when it's treated as a furnished rentals subsidy.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I used to think that But I’ve seen single words changed in budget appropriation bills that completely altered a tax reality in any observer’s favor, that no politician read Fun game, hard for me to draw a clear distinction on what’s a loophole or not. If the government says my “fair share” is 0% fine by me.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
This does not benefit AirBnb, though, but the people who let properties through AirBnb or any other way. Basically this is for the benefit of anyone doing furnished holiday letting. This also does not sound like a "loophole" but a tax break specifically created for this, probably to encourage holiday lets. Now that AirBnb has made them explode the pendulum has swung back to wanting to discourage some of them and so they want to change the tax rules accordingly.
- mfalcao 3y ago
  Doesn't it benefit AirBnb indirectly though? Lower taxes -> AirBnb is more attractive for owners -> more properties on the platform -> more profit for AirBnb
nohaydeprobleme 3y ago
A close translation is: "The renters of furnished tourist accommodations that receive ratings (between 1 and 5 stars), like Airbnb, currently benefit from an "abattement forfaitaire" [a tax deduction [1] that corresponds to professional costs incurred by a micro-entrepreneur] of 71% for up to 176,200 euros in revenue, in contrast to a deduction of 50% for traditional furnished accommodations, and 30% for empty [non-furnished] rentals with a limit of 15,000 euros of rental income." The full source of the excerpt is also a news report in Le Parisien, a daily newspaper (co-written with the AFP): https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/bruno-lemaire-veut-reformer-la-fiscalite-tres-favorable-des-locations-type-airbnb-09-06-2023-KOEQGGKQ4ZHQHBB2VHRFGOV7NA.php https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/bruno-lemaire-veut-reform... [1] https://www.legalplace.fr/guides/abattement-auto-entrepreneur/ https://www.legalplace.fr/guides/abattement-auto-entrepreneu...
2Gkashmiri 3y ago
in india, if you are owing a second or third home, you can deduct 1/3 of the income as "expense" flat. its auto calculated so you don't even have to claim it or can claim more than that. if you are a business, (as opposed to individual owned) (a guest house or bnb or whatever), you are treated as a normal business so on all incomes you can claim expenses which you have actually paid. this is a stupid rule to let businesses treat their business as "home" and then claim flat rate expenses (why did nobody think of fixing this till now?)

by gniv 3y ago

Veedrac 3y ago

Which raises the obvious point that a specifically carved out exception for a good on the basis of its assumed positive externalities is not a ‘loophole’. It is at most a subsidy. (Though, obviously, not enough of one. Land ownership should be taxed but land rental should be untaxed, as a quick glimpse at the market incentive structures will inform. Taxing revenue is insane.)

maeln 3y ago
I think it is a usual case of "This is why we can't have nice things". The "loophole" was created for a reason and then it got abused to a point of becoming its own issue.
robertlagrant 3y ago
When you write down rules by which you can take money for free from other people, any rule that means they don't have to give you money is, whether you call it a loophole or not, not a problem. Write your free money rules better.
- Retric 3y ago
  That would apply if governments were simply bandits providing nothing of value. Instead, governments provide many extremely valuable services. So, people rightly complain about free riders benefiting from the services which other taxpayers need to pay for without chipping in.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    The fact is that the government, like a bandit, says to a person: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon them from the road side, and, holding a pistol to their head, proceed to rifle their pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The bandit takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes people’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. --Lysander Spooner
    - sofixa 3y ago
      (on libertrarians) House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appeciate or understand. -- John Spaulding
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Cats are quite capable of subsisting on squirrels and birds. But if you put cat food on a plate, they do what's easier. The question is, does "free" stuff justify its true cost? How many people would willingly pay the amount they currently pay to Raytheon or upper middle class retirees with plenty of savings, if they actually had a choice?
simiones 3y ago
I think the loophole is that Airbnb is profiting massively by renting all of these properties, but each property owner individually is not making significant profits. I would guess the intention is to tax Airbnb appropriately as one of the biggest hotel services out there, without affecting actual independent BnBs.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > I think the loophole is that Airbnb is profiting massively by renting all of these properties, but each property owner individually is not making significant profits. While I do think that the government would like more tax revenue from AirBnB and other "foreign tech", I think that in touristy areas property owners are making a killing. Aside from the "loophole" discussed here, another one is that, for example in Paris, these rentals aren't covered by the rent control laws. So even though you need to put in a bit more work for short stays compared to long ones, you're practically guaranteed a good occupation rate for your apartment and can cash in on the much higher rate you can charge. I don't know how true this is, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction by locals, but it would seem that in other touristy places there's been an influx in "holiday-rentals" pushing locals who can't afford the rising prices out of the market. These areas have more of a season effect (think seaside resorts, only popular in the summer). So, the way they "measured" it was that during the low season people would find rentals, but no-one would want a long-term contract covering the high-season, when all the properties would be put on the short-term market. Another regulation which these rentals can side-step is having to provide an apartment with a certain minimum "energy grade". The goal of the scheme was to push landlords to improve the insulation of their properties to lower heating costs (broadly speaking). The issue is that rents being fixed, this had to come fully out of the landlord's pocket. Which, of course, they'd rather avoid. Bonus points for having to add this insulation on the inside, which reduces the area of the property, so the rent they can ask. This is compounded in "tense" markets, such as Paris, by the fact that many of the flats are concerned by this, or will soon be.
comte7092 3y ago
A loophole is when something is used for something other than its intended purpose. France wanted to subsidize b&bs, Airbnb, despite its name, doesn’t actually provide b&bs as a significant part of its business.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  In this case it is used exactly for its intended purpose, which is to encourage furnished holiday lets. AirBnb does not directly benefit from this. The property owners do. The issue is that the number of holiday lets has exploded thanks to AirBnb so now they no longer want to encourage them, or at least not the purely AirBnb type.
  - csomar 3y ago
    It is another tax but without the tax label. Now we call it "Closing a loophole for the greedy Tech companies".
- Veedrac 3y ago
  If true that's even more convoluted than I would have guessed. And I agree with the other comment; if you want to subsidize b&bs but you instead subsidize furnished rentals, it's on you when it's treated as a furnished rentals subsidy.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I used to think that But I’ve seen single words changed in budget appropriation bills that completely altered a tax reality in any observer’s favor, that no politician read Fun game, hard for me to draw a clear distinction on what’s a loophole or not. If the government says my “fair share” is 0% fine by me.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

This does not benefit AirBnb, though, but the people who let properties through AirBnb or any other way. Basically this is for the benefit of anyone doing furnished holiday letting. This also does not sound like a "loophole" but a tax break specifically created for this, probably to encourage holiday lets. Now that AirBnb has made them explode the pendulum has swung back to wanting to discourage some of them and so they want to change the tax rules accordingly.

mfalcao 3y ago
Doesn't it benefit AirBnb indirectly though? Lower taxes -> AirBnb is more attractive for owners -> more properties on the platform -> more profit for AirBnb

nohaydeprobleme 3y ago

A close translation is: "The renters of furnished tourist accommodations that receive ratings (between 1 and 5 stars), like Airbnb, currently benefit from an "abattement forfaitaire" [a tax deduction [1] that corresponds to professional costs incurred by a micro-entrepreneur] of 71% for up to 176,200 euros in revenue, in contrast to a deduction of 50% for traditional furnished accommodations, and 30% for empty [non-furnished] rentals with a limit of 15,000 euros of rental income." The full source of the excerpt is also a news report in Le Parisien, a daily newspaper (co-written with the AFP): https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/bruno-lemaire-veut-reformer-la-fiscalite-tres-favorable-des-locations-type-airbnb-09-06-2023-KOEQGGKQ4ZHQHBB2VHRFGOV7NA.php https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/bruno-lemaire-veut-reform... [1] https://www.legalplace.fr/guides/abattement-auto-entrepreneur/ https://www.legalplace.fr/guides/abattement-auto-entrepreneu...

2Gkashmiri 3y ago

in india, if you are owing a second or third home, you can deduct 1/3 of the income as "expense" flat. its auto calculated so you don't even have to claim it or can claim more than that. if you are a business, (as opposed to individual owned) (a guest house or bnb or whatever), you are treated as a normal business so on all incomes you can claim expenses which you have actually paid. this is a stupid rule to let businesses treat their business as "home" and then claim flat rate expenses (why did nobody think of fixing this till now?)