The Angèle case, which came to light in February 2026, brings back into the spotlight a mechanism that is little known to the general public but highly effective: Article 155 A of the General Tax Code. Extended by the 2024 Finance Act to include image rights and related rights, this provision now imposes new obligations on artists, athletes, and influencers operating in France through a foreign entity.
- The Origins of the System: Jazz, Panama, and the Birth of a Tax Fiction
The phenomenon emerged in the United States in the 1960s. Nat King Cole, a leading figure in American jazz, had set up a Panamanian company to collect the fees from his international tours. The mechanism was disarmingly simple: the artist performed, the company billed, and the actual compensation (a modest salary) was largely exempt from taxation in the state of residence of the actual performer.
In France, the legislative response came as early as the 1973 Finance Act, codified in Article 155 A of the General Tax Code (CGI). The legal framework adopted is bold: the provision establishes a legal fiction that the income is received by the individual service provider, notwithstanding the fact that this income is legally received by a separate foreign legal entity. As a result, the amount received by the intermediary company is “deemed to have been earned” by the artist or athlete themselves, who thereby becomes personally liable for tax in France on that income.
Article 155A establishes a legal fiction regarding the artist’s allocation of income. This legal fiction must be fully applied for the purposes of international tax treaties: the treaty between France and the place of residence of the apparent service provider does not apply. (Council of State, Aznavour, landmark decision / CE Dec. 4, 2013, No. 348136, Edmilson Gomes de Moares)
Three alternative conditions, largely established through case law, trigger this mechanism. The taxpayer must directly or indirectly control the foreign entity; or the entity must not primarily engage in an industrial or commercial activity other than the provision of services; or the company is established in a tax haven as defined in Article 238 A of the General Tax Code (CGI). Meeting just one of these three conditions is sufficient.
- Current State of the Law: Image Rights, Related Rights, Industrial Property—the scope is expanding.
For five decades, Article 155A targeted services rendered in France. An artist performing on stage through a Scottish company, a celebrity whose name was exploited by a Delaware-based entity—these were all situations that could potentially fall under the law. But image rights themselves (income derived from the sale or licensing of a public figure’s image, name, or voice) remained outside the explicit scope of the statute, at least according to interpretations most favorable to taxpayers.
Law No. 2023-1322 of December 29, 2023, on the 2024 Budget (Art. 10), closes this loophole. Effective January 1, 2024, the law expressly covers amounts received in exchange for:
New categories of income subject to taxation as of January 1, 2024 (BOFiP, BOI-IR-DOMIC-10-20-20-20):
- the commercial exploitation of rights associated with the image, name, or voice of one or more individuals
- the use of copyrights or related rights (rights of performers, producers of sound recordings, etc.)
- industrial or commercial property (trademarks, patents)
- all equivalent rights: a deliberately broad formulation designed to cover hybrid arrangements
This expansion is significant.
This means that an artist who is a French tax resident (or presumed to be one by the tax authorities) whose image is commercially exploited (advertising campaigns, brand licensing, editorial partnerships) through a company established abroad may be subject to taxation in France on all such income, provided that one of the three alternative conditions is met.
Practical note: The 2024 extension expressly incorporates the neighboring rights of performing artists. For a musical artist whose neighboring rights (streaming, broadcasting) are managed by a Luxembourg or Irish company that the artist controls, there is now a direct risk of reclassification, unless it can be established that the company in question engages primarily in a commercial activity other than the provision of services.
- THE ANGELE CASE
In February 2026, the Belgian daily newspaper L’Avenir and several business media outlets reported that Angèle Van Laeken was under investigation by the General Directorate of Public Finance (DGFiP). A home search (tax raid) was conducted at her apartment in Paris’s 18th arrondissement.
- The diagram in question
In May 2021, Angèle Van Laeken incorporated the limited liability company (SRL) “Saïmiri” in Belgium, of which she is the sole shareholder and sole director. The company, incorporated under Belgian law, is intended to collect the income generated by her artistic activities and image rights contracts (notably her partnership with Chanel and her global advertising campaigns). From a Belgian perspective, there is nothing irregular about this: the structure falls within the framework of the favorable tax regime for copyright and intellectual property income, which is taxed at 15% in Belgium as investment income.
- The French government’s position.
Bercy cites an interview given in 2023 to Vogue magazine in which the artist states that she spends half her time in Paris. Under French tax law, staying in the country for more than 183 days is one of the criteria for tax residency (Art. 4 B, I, a) of the General Tax Code). On this basis, the DGFiP argues that Angèle Van Laeken is a French tax resident for the years in question, which opens up two simultaneous avenues for tax reassessment:
- The individual’s French tax residency, with taxation of worldwide income at the French progressive tax rates;
- The place of effective management of SRL Saïmiri: Given the lack of logistical resources at the Belgian headquarters and the fact that effective management is carried out from Paris, the tax authorities classify the company as a letterbox company, comparable to a SASU under French law subject to corporate income tax in France.
- Relationship to Article 155A.
If the artist’s French tax residency is established, SRL Saïmiri (a foreign entity 100% controlled by the actual service provider, with no predominant commercial activity other than the provision of services) meets the alternative conditions set forth in the text. The amounts received by the company in respect of image rights and related rights (now within the scope of Article 155 A as of 2024) would be taxable in the artist’s hands in France.
- Angèle Van Laeken’s defense.
Her attorney strongly disputes the classification of her as a French tax resident. The central argument is based on the treaty: under the Franco-Belgian treaty of March 10, 1964 (as amended), the decisive criterion for resolving a conflict of residence is the permanent home, followed by the center of vital interests (social, economic, and emotional life). It is argued that all of these factors link the artist to Brussels, not to Paris.
- The Franco-Belgian Agreement
The Franco-Belgian tax treaty, in its current consolidated version, is based on the OECD Model with respect to residency. In cases of potential dual residency (i.e., when both countries simultaneously claim residency status), the tie-breaking criteria are applied in sequence:
- Permanent Residential Facility
An apartment in Paris (18th arrondissement) and a residence in Brussels: a non-discriminatory criterion if both countries have a permanent residence
- Center of Vital Interests
Economic ties (Belgian SRL, contracts, management) vs. physical presence in Paris (studio, professional network): this criterion is at the heart of the dispute
- Usual stay
Cannot be determined without an accurate count of overnight stays (energy consumption in Paris is used as an indicator by the tax authorities)
- Nationality
Since the singer is a Belgian citizen, this criterion works in Belgium’s favor at this stage
- Amicable Settlement
Possible Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) between French and Belgian authorities
A precedent in case law is instructive here. The Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal has already applied Article 155 A of the General Tax Code (CGI) to a taxpayer who is a Belgian tax resident, holding that the provisions of the Franco-Belgian treaty of March 10, 1964, relating to independent professional activities (which make French taxation contingent on the existence of a fixed establishment used on a regular basis) are not intended to apply to a resident of Belgium whose income is captured through the mechanism of Article 155 A, as this provision establishes a “fictitious realization” that overrides the standard treaty allocation.
The administration’s key argument: Since Article 155 A fictitiously creates a realization of income by the physical service provider, the applicable treaty is the one between France and the country of residence of the “actual” service provider, and not the one between France and the country where the intermediary company is established. If Angèle Van Laeken is deemed a French tax resident, the Franco-Belgian treaty is rendered ineffective in two ways: both as a residency criterion and as a treaty shield for SRL Saïmiri.
- Active vs. Passive Use: The Vuarnet Case—or When Section 155A Does Not Apply
This provision is subject to a significant legal limitation established by the Council of State in the Vuarnet decision (CE, June 8, 2020, No. 418962): Article 155 A of the General Tax Code does not apply when a person’s fame is exploited passively, that is, when the celebrity has ceased their artistic or athletic activity at the time their image is being exploited.
This distinction between active exploitation (linked to an ongoing activity) and passive exploitation (the mere monetization of past fame) is fundamental. It draws a line between:
- An active artist whose image is used in campaigns related to their current career: active use, as it is inseparable from their artistic activity
- A retired artist whose historical image is licensed for merchandise: passive exploitation, since the artist’s fame is part of their cultural heritage (Vuarnet, 2020)
- A former athlete whose name is used in advertising communications unrelated to his or her former career: to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis depending on the inseparability of the athlete’s fame and his or her former career
For Angèle Van Laeken (an artist at the height of her career, whose return to the music scene and partnership with Chanel are inextricably linked to her contemporary artistic reputation), the Vuarnet line of defense is closed. The operation is, by its very nature, active.
- The Belgian Copyright System: Attractiveness and Reform
An understanding of the Saïmiri framework is incomplete without examining the Belgian tax system that underpins its economic rationale. Since 2008, Belgium has treated income from copyrights and related rights as investment income, taxed at a flat rate of 15 percent; which is significantly lower than the progressive tax scale applicable to earned income in France. This system does not give rise to any social security contributions, further widening the gap with a traditional wage-earning system.
The 2023 reform, which has now taken full effect, has tightened the eligibility requirements: only income derived from the actual exploitation of a literary or artistic work is now eligible. The annual threshold (above which copyright royalties are reclassified as business income) is set at €77,220 for the 2026 tax year.
An additional cap limits the share of royalties to 30% of the assignor’s total compensation in 2026. Starting in 2026, the flat-rate deductions of 50% and 25%—which reduced the effective tax rate to 7.5% on the first bracket—will be eliminated.
Changes to the Belgian Copyright System, 2023–2026
- Withholding tax rate: 15% (unchanged)
- Absolute ceiling for 2026: €77,220 (copyright income averaged over 4 years)
- Relative cap: 30% of total compensation in 2026
- 50%/25% flat-rate fees: eliminated effective January 1, 2026
- Reinstatement of the IT sector: Yes, effective January 1, 2026
- Effective operating requirement: required as of January 1, 2023
For an artist like Angèle Van Laeken, whose income from neighboring rights (streaming, radio broadcasting) and image rights exceeds the €77,220 threshold, the portion subject to the favorable tax regime remains quantitatively modest. The French tax issue actually concerns the portion of income exceeding this threshold—which is treated as business income in Belgium—and which the French Ministry of Finance intends to tax in full in France.
- Rethinking Structuring in the Age of the Extended System
The Angèle case illustrates with particular clarity the structural risks inherent in combining a significant physical presence in France with a collection arrangement through a foreign company. Several guidelines are necessary.
- The substance of the foreign company is the determining factor
One of the three alternative conditions set forth in Article 155 A may be waived if the foreign company primarily engages in an industrial or commercial activity other than the provision of services. This requires “substantive presence”: human and material resources at the foreign headquarters, actual decision-making on site, and day-to-day management not carried out from France. A company whose sole director is the actual service provider—with no delegation of management authority and no verifiable local presence—is structurally vulnerable.
- The applicable tax treaty depends on actual residence
The tally of days spent in the country must be rigorously documented: work calendars, transportation tickets, credit card statements, and phone bills. Case law recognizes these as evidence, and the authorities make full use of them. For an artist with dual French and Belgian citizenship, the center of vital interests must be established and maintained—not merely declared.
- Image rights are now a key consideration: a contract review is necessary
All image licensing, advertising partnership, or neighboring rights assignment agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2024, with foreign companies controlled by the actual service provider must be reviewed in light of the new wording of Article 155 A. The risk applies both prospectively and retroactively to contracts in effect at the time of the reform.
- The Belgian Tax Ruling (Advance Ruling): An Underutilized Tool
Belgium has an ex ante assurance mechanism (the advance ruling issued by the Advance Rulings Service (SDA/DVB)) that allows for the validation of an arrangement’s tax treatment prior to its implementation. For any Belgian artist wishing to structure their royalty income through a company incorporated under Belgian law, obtaining a ruling is an essential safeguard, including in the event of a future dispute with the French tax authorities.
The Angèle Van Laeken case is neither a minor incident nor an isolated personal matter.
This is a symptom of a major trend: European tax authorities, armed with cross-referencing tools (the DAC6 Directive, automatic exchange of information, and analysis of social media and consumption data), have developed an unprecedented ability to determine the effective tax residence of high-profile taxpayers. The combination of the expansion of the scope of Article 155 A in 2024 and the arsenal of digital evidence represents a major qualitative shift.
For artists, athletes, influencers, and creators who operate in multiple countries, now is the time for a structural review: verifying the substance of intermediary entities, rigorously documenting actual residence, planning ahead in accordance with agreements, and engaging in proactive dialogue with the relevant authorities before an audit begins.
Polaris Avocats advises artists, production companies, creators, and image management organizations on issues related to international structuring, whether through advisory services, tax audits, or litigation.
The analyses published in this newsletter are intended to provide general information and do not constitute individualized legal advice.