Home / Resources / Simulators / Article 82
Free simulator
Article 82 simulator: individually held supplementary retirement plan
"Article 82" is a defined-contribution retirement contract funded by the company for employees or executives. What sets it apart: employer contributions are taxable on entry as additional salary — no deduction — but in return the capital remains available, not locked in until retirement, and it can be passed on.
Not locked in, unlike the PER or the Article 83 plan
Like salary, but with compounded gains
The contract can pass to the holder's beneficiaries
The simulator
Simulate your Article 82
The simulator projects the capital built up at the end of the term. Your data is neither stored nor transmitted.
Article 82 simulator
Defined-contribution "top-up salary" retirement contract: project the capital you build up, which remains available and can be passed on.
Indicative calculation, based on 2026 rules and the assumptions entered above.
Why
Why Article 82 trades tax advantages for freedom
Most company retirement schemes rest on an implicit bargain: a tax advantage on entry in exchange for savings locked in until retirement. Article 82 reverses this bargain. It gives no deduction — the employer contribution is treated as a top-up salary, taxable on entry as additional pay. In exchange, it offers what locked-in schemes refuse: availability.
This freedom changes everything for certain profiles. The capital is not locked in until retirement: the holder can withdraw it whenever they wish, and it passes to their beneficiaries. For a senior executive who wants flexible savings rather than a distant annuity, or for wealth already saturated with locked-in schemes, this liquid pocket has real value.
Article 82 is therefore used less as a tax-reduction tool than as an instrument of deferred remuneration and retention. A company can use it to reward a senior or key executive by offering savings that remain available and can be passed on — a complement to, not a substitute for, tax-advantaged schemes.
What the calculation shows
The 3 levers this simulator helps you think through
Unlike the PER or the Article 83 plan, Article 82 capital is not locked in until retirement. For an executive whose horizon is uncertain — an upcoming sale, a personal project, a need for liquidity — this flexibility is often worth more than the tax advantage of a locked-in scheme. Article 82 is the liquid pocket of a retirement strategy, to be sized in relation to the wrappers locked in elsewhere.
Article 82 comes into its own as a complement. An executive who has already used up their deduction ceilings — individual PER, Article 83 plan — and wants to keep building savings through the company can use Article 82 for the portion that would no longer receive any advantage on entry. They then trade a tax advantage they have already exhausted for a freedom they did not have. It is an allocation decision, not a default choice.
An Article 82 contract can benefit the holder's beneficiaries: it is an estate transfer vehicle as well as available savings. For an executive already thinking about organising the transfer of their wealth, this feature deserves to be built into the overall strategy — beneficiary clause, coordination with assurance-vie, estate objective. An angle that the standard sales pitch almost always overlooks.
Case study
Case study: Florence, 53, salaried chief executive in Aix-en-Provence
Florence, a chief executive with employee-equivalent status, benefits from an Article 82 plan funded by her company: a €300 monthly contribution over 12 years, at a 4% return net of fees. The contribution is taxable on entry, but the capital remains available. Here is the projection:
| Indicator | Article 82 (available) | Equivalent locked-in scheme | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative contributions over 12 years | ≈ €43,200 | ≈ €43,200 | — |
| Tax advantage on entry | none (taxed as salary) | deduction at marginal tax rate | − |
| Projected capital at the end of the term | ≈ €55,000 | ≈ €55,000 | — |
| Availability of capital | at any time | locked in until retirement | + freedom |
Florence gives up the tax advantage on entry — her contribution is taxed as additional salary — but gains a freedom that neither the PER nor the Article 83 plan offers: her capital of around €55,000 remains available at any time, and can be passed on. For an executive whose career horizon is shifting and who has already used up her deductible wrappers, this liquid pocket is worth more than the tax saving she would have obtained in a locked-in scheme.
The lesson: Article 82 should not be compared with a PER on tax alone — it would lose. It is judged on the freedom and transferability it provides, alongside deductible schemes. It is a trade-off between immediate advantage and availability, to be decided according to the executive's overall situation, never by looking at the tax rate in isolation.
In practice
Freedom has a tax cost — sometimes it is worth paying
This simulator projects the capital built up at the end of the term. But the value of Article 82 cannot be read from that figure alone: it lies in the availability and transferability it provides, set against the deductible schemes already in place. Should you favour the tax advantage of a locked-in scheme, or the freedom of a liquid pocket? The answer depends on your horizon, the deduction ceilings you have already used and your estate transfer objective.
Balmont Conseil is a wealth management advisory firm based in Lyon, a member of ANACOFI-CIF, with no capital ties to any bank or insurer. Open architecture allows us to compare Article 82, the PER and the Article 83 plan objectively, and to select the contract from among our partners according to your interest — not according to the product a network is trying to place. Let's book an appointment to weigh tax advantage against freedom.
Frequently asked questions
What clients ask us.
Why does Article 82 offer no deduction on entry?
Because the employer contribution is treated as additional salary, and is therefore taxable on entry, unlike the PER or the Article 83 plan, where it is deductible. That is the price of its flexibility: by giving up the immediate tax advantage, the holder gains access to their capital and the ability to pass it on. It is a trade-off between tax advantage and freedom.
Is the capital truly available before retirement?
Yes, it is the key feature of Article 82: unlike the PER and the Article 83 plan, the capital is not locked in until retirement. The holder can withdraw it whenever they wish. This availability makes it a valuable liquid pocket, particularly for an executive whose career horizon is uncertain or who has already used up their deductible wrappers.
Can an Article 82 plan be passed on?
Yes, the contract can benefit the holder's beneficiaries, which makes it an estate transfer vehicle as well as available savings. This feature deserves to be built into an overall wealth strategy, alongside assurance-vie and the estate objective — an angle often overlooked in the standard sales pitch.
Who is Article 82 suitable for?
It is typically aimed at a senior executive to whom the company wants to offer flexible savings that build loyalty, or at an executive whose wealth is already saturated with locked-in schemes and who wants to add a liquid pocket. It is not a tax-reduction tool but an instrument of deferred remuneration and estate transfer: it complements deductible schemes, it does not replace them.
What is the difference between Balmont Conseil and a bank adviser?
Balmont Conseil is a wealth management advisory firm, a member of ANACOFI-CIF, with no capital ties to any bank or insurer. We compare Article 82, the PER and the Article 83 plan objectively according to your situation, and select the contract from among our partners. A bank adviser or insurance agent pushes their network's product; we weigh tax advantage against flexibility in your interest, with no preference for any given product.
