Guide · Location meublée
LMNP depreciation: what the resale clawback really changes
Since 15 February 2025, depreciation deducted under LMNP is clawed back into the capital gain. What it changes in the calculation, and why the actual regime often still wins.
For twenty years, furnished letting under the actual regime offered owners an advantage few investments matched: depreciating the property each year, which erased tax on the rent, without that depreciation ever being clawed back on resale. You deducted, and you gave nothing back. The 2025 finance act closed that door, and most yield projections made before then have become wrong.
This guide explains exactly what changes, and above all what does not. It complements our reference page on furnished letting and LMNP status.
What depreciation was, and why it appealed
Under the actual regime, a furnished landlord treats their property as a business treats its production tool: each year they record the theoretical loss of value of the building and the furniture, and deduct it from receipts. Land is not depreciated, the building is depreciated over twenty-five to forty years depending on its components, furniture over five to ten years.
The effect is spectacular. On a flat bought for 300,000 euros of which 240,000 is building, annual depreciation runs around 7,000 euros, to which are added furniture, loan interest, property tax, service charges, insurance and accounting fees. Against 14,000 euros of annual rent, taxable profit often falls to zero. For years, the owner collected rent without paying tax on it.
What the 2025 rule changed
Since 15 February 2025, depreciation deducted during the letting period reduces the acquisition price when calculating the capital gain. Mechanically, the taxable gain increases by the total amount of depreciation taken.
Back to the example. Property bought at 300,000 euros, depreciated by 7,000 euros a year for twelve years, so 84,000 euros, then resold at 380,000 euros.
| Before 15 February 2025 | Since | |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition price retained | 300,000 euros | 300,000 less 84,000, so 216,000 euros |
| Gross capital gain | 80,000 euros | 164,000 euros |
| Effect of depreciation | None | Gain increased by 84,000 euros |
The table is frightening, and rightly so. Yet it tells only half the story.
What has not changed, and matters just as much
Three elements continue to work in favour of the actual regime, and they are often forgotten in alarmist articles.
Holding-period allowances. They apply to the increased gain as they did before: income tax is entirely erased after twenty-two years of ownership, and social charges after thirty. Over a long holding, the depreciation clawback is absorbed by these allowances.
The value of time. Tax you do not pay for fifteen years, and settle at the end, does not cost the same as tax paid every year. Throughout the holding, the money not paid to the Treasury stays with you, and it works. That is the essence of the advantage, and it survives intact.
The amount of deductible costs. Depreciation is only one line among others. Loan interest, property tax, co-ownership charges, insurance, management and accounting fees remain deductible under the actual regime and are never clawed back. On a property financed by a loan, these costs alone are often enough to tip the balance.
How to redo the calculation honestly
The right way to decide is no longer to compare the annual tax of the two regimes, but to reason on the intended holding period.
- Long holding, beyond fifteen years. The actual regime remains clearly the winner: the tax deferral works in full and the allowances start erasing the clawback.
- Medium holding, eight to fifteen years. The calculation is case by case, and depends above all on whether there is a loan. With significant loan interest, the actual regime keeps the advantage; without a loan, the gap narrows.
- Short holding, under eight years. Micro-BIC often becomes preferable again, because the clawback falls before any allowance has begun to work.
This reasoning crosses that of the choice of regime, detailed in our guide on furnished or unfurnished letting, and that of yield, covered in calculating rental yield. For a tourist let, the question of classification must be added, which the same reform made decisive: our guide on classifying your tourist let gives the calculation.
What to do now
If you are already on the actual regime, do not change on impulse: leaving it does not remove the depreciation already taken, which will still be clawed back on resale. Leaving only deprives you of future deductions.
If you are still hesitating, put the question to an accountant before the first return, because the option is exercised within precise deadlines and commits you for several years. That is exactly what French Realty directs you to: a partner used to non-resident landlords, who sets out both calculations on your real figures and under their own responsibility.
To frame your situation before choosing, the complimentary personal study is the starting point.
Frequently asked questions
Does the clawback apply to depreciation from before 2025?
Yes. The rule covers disposals made from 15 February 2025, and it bears on all depreciation deducted during the letting period, including that of earlier years. It is not the date of deduction that counts, it is the date of the sale. A property depreciated for ten years and sold in 2026 therefore sees ten years of depreciation reintegrated.
Is it still worth switching to the actual regime?
In most cases yes, but for a different reason than before. The advantage is no longer definitive, it is deferred: you pay no tax on the rent while you hold the property, and you settle the bill on resale. Tax deferred by fifteen or twenty years is worth far less than tax paid every year, and the holding-period allowances progressively erase the clawback. A quick resale, by contrast, changes the calculation entirely.
Which properties escape the clawback?
The text reserves exceptions for certain managed residences, notably student residences and establishments housing elderly or dependent people. A standard home, let furnished year-round or seasonally, is fully subject to it. The distinction rests on the nature of the establishment, not on the tax regime chosen.