Exit Tax and Crypto in France

France's exit tax (exit tax, article 167 bis CGI) is one of the sharpest expatriation traps for the wealthy — and one of the few areas where directly-held crypto is, as the rule currently stands, surprisingly favoured. A personal crypto portfolio is outside 167 bis. The same crypto inside a holding company is fully caught. This guide is the boundary, the wrapper trap, and the PLF 2026 risk.

TL;DR

• Directly-held personal crypto (patrimonial): outside article 167 bis as the rule stands — expatriate with latent gains without triggering exit tax on those assets.
• Crypto via an IS holding company: the company shares are in scope (broadly, > €800,000 value or 50% participation) — fully caught.
• The wrapper changes everything: same crypto, opposite exit-tax outcome.
• Professional/BNC activity: separate analysis — the patrimonial assumption no longer holds.
• PLF 2026 risk: tightening has been discussed — current position is not guaranteed permanent.

What the exit tax is

Article 167 bis CGI taxes certain latent capital gains when a tax resident leaves France, broadly where the taxpayer's relevant holdings exceed value/participation thresholds (commonly summarised as > €800,000 in value or a 50% participation). It targets securities and company rights — it was designed for shareholders expatriating with unrealised gains, with a possible payment deferral (sursis).

The question for crypto holders: are crypto-assets "securities or company rights" within 167 bis?

Directly-held crypto: outside 167 bis (as the rule stands)

For an individual holding crypto directly — a personal portefeuille crypto (Bitcoin, Ether, etc.) — the analysis, as the rule currently stands, is that these assets are not within the scope of article 167 bis, provided the activity remains patrimonial (occasional investor, not professional). The practical consequence is striking:

An individual can, in principle, expatriate from France with large latent crypto gains on directly-held assets without the exit tax triggering on those assets.

This is a genuine contrast with listed securities and company shares, which 167 bis is built to capture. It is not a deliberate "crypto incentive" — it is a consequence of the article's scope not extending to directly-held crypto-assets. Two cautions: it assumes patrimonial (non-professional) activity, and it reflects current scope, not a permanent carve-out (see PLF 2026 below).

The holding-company trap

The favourable position inverts if the crypto is held through a holding company subject to corporate tax (impôt sur les sociétés, IS). Now the relevant asset is not the crypto — it is the shares of the company, which are securities within 167 bis. If the usual thresholds are met (broadly > €800,000 in value or 50% participation), the latent gain on the company shares is caught by the exit tax on departure.

So the same economic crypto exposure produces opposite outcomes:

A founder who, for income-tax reasons, moved crypto trading into a company (a common move at scale — see France crypto tax guide) may have created an exit-tax exposure that direct holding would not have had. The wrapper decision and the expatriation decision must be analysed together, not separately.

The professional-activity caveat

The directly-held-crypto-outside-167-bis position assumes the activity is patrimonial. If the activity is professional/BNC (see occasional vs habitual trader), or the crypto is a business asset, the characterisation — and the exit-tax and broader-tax analysis — changes. The status question is upstream of the exit-tax question; resolve it first.

The PLF 2026 risk

The position above reflects the current scope of article 167 bis. The Projet de loi de finances 2026 (finance-bill) process has included discussion of tightening the exit tax. Any change that brings directly-held crypto into 167 bis scope would be material for crypto holders planning departure. The disciplined posture: plan against the current rule today, treat the PLF 2026 direction as a monitored risk with counsel, and do not assume the directly-held carve-out is permanent. (This is a proposal/process point, not enacted law — frame it as such.)

Practical guidance for a crypto holder leaving France

1. Map the structure: directly-held personal crypto vs IS-holding-company crypto vs professional activity — they have different exit-tax outcomes.
2. If directly held and patrimonial: currently outside 167 bis on those assets — but confirm and watch PLF 2026.
3. If via an IS holding: model the latent gain on the company shares against the 167 bis thresholds; this is the real exposure.
4. Resolve the occasional/professional status first — it conditions everything.
5. Plan the departure year: CARF/DAC8 reporting through the transition, residency tie-breakers, sursis mechanics — with a French tax lawyer. Exit-tax errors are made at departure and are hard to undo (see UAE for the destination-side residency point).

How vendor tools fit

Waltio and Koinly reconstruct the crypto history needed for the departure-year French filing and any CARF/DAC8 reconciliation. They do not perform the exit-tax structural analysis (directly-held vs holding-company vs professional) — that is a French-tax-lawyer judgement. Use the tools for the figures, counsel for the structure.

How Wag3s helps

Wag3s Folio reconstructs the complete multi-chain history and latent-position valuation a French tax lawyer needs to run the 167 bis analysis (directly-held vs holding-company), and reconciles against CARF/DAC8-reported activity through a departure transition. For an IS holding company holding crypto, Wag3s Ledger provides the audit-ready records behind the share-valuation analysis. See the Folio and Ledger pages.

Further reading

• France Crypto Tax Guide 2026
• Occasional vs Habitual Trader (France)
• BNC vs PFU for Crypto in France
• UAE Crypto Tax Guide 2026 — destination-side residency
• DAC8 vs CARF Difference
• DAC8 Impact on Individuals

Sources

• Article 167 bis CGI (exit tax) — Légifrance
• Practitioner analysis: directly-held crypto-assets vs holding-company shares under 167 bis (Éditions JFA; Lawperationnel)
• Projet de loi de finances 2026 — discussion of exit-tax tightening (proposal, not enacted)
• Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226 (DAC8) — EUR-Lex