In short…
The “Article 82” is a defined-contribution retirement contract funded by the company for the benefit of employees or managers. Its singularity: the employer contributions are taxable at entry as a salary top-up — no deduction — but in return the capital stays available, not locked until retirement, and it is transmissible. It is a flexible deferred-remuneration tool that trades the immediate tax advantage for freedom. It is used to retain an executive to whom one wants to offer liquid savings, or to complement a locked-in scheme with an available pocket.
- Available capital — not locked-in, unlike the PER or Article 83
- Contributions taxable at entry — like a salary, but with compounded gains
- Transmissible — the contract can benefit the holder’s heirs
Simulate your Article 82
The simulator projects the capital built at term. Your data is neither stored nor transmitted.
Article 82 plan simulator
A defined-contribution “top-up salary” retirement contract: project the capital built, available and transmissible.
Results are provided for purely illustrative and educational purposes, based on the parameters you enter and simplified assumptions (2026 taxation, constant return, excluding inflation). They constitute neither personalised investment advice, nor tax advice, nor an offer to subscribe. Some investments carry a risk of capital loss. Before any decision, speak with an advisor.
Why Article 82 trades the tax advantage for freedom
Most company-retirement schemes rest on an implicit bargain: a tax advantage at entry against a lock-in of the savings until retirement. Article 82 reverses this bargain. It gives no deduction — the employer contribution is treated as a top-up salary, taxable at entry like extra pay. In exchange, it offers what locked-in schemes refuse: availability.
This freedom changes everything for certain profiles. The capital is not locked until retirement: it can be recovered whenever the holder wishes, and it passes to the heirs. For an executive who wants flexible savings rather than a distant annuity, or for an estate already saturated with locked-in schemes, this liquid pocket has real value.
Article 82 is therefore used less as a tax-cutting tool than as an instrument of deferred remuneration and retention. A company can use it to reward a manager or a key executive, offering them available, transmissible savings — a complement, not a substitute, to the tax-advantaged schemes.
The 3 levers this simulator lets you think through
Lever 1 — availability as a value in itself
Unlike the PER or Article 83, the Article 82 capital is not locked until retirement. For a manager whose horizon is uncertain — a sale ahead, a personal project, a liquidity need — 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 against the wrappers locked in elsewhere.
Lever 2 — complement, not replace, the deductible schemes
Article 82 comes into its own as a complement. A manager who has already saturated their deduction ceilings — individual PER, Article 83 — and wants to keep building savings via the company can use Article 82 for the share that would no longer enjoy an entry advantage. They then swap a tax advantage they have already exhausted for a freedom they did not have. It is an allocation arbitrage, not a default choice.
Lever 3 — transmission, a rarely exploited angle
The Article 82 contract can benefit the holder’s heirs: it is a transmission vehicle, on top of being available savings. For a manager already thinking about organising the transmission of their estate, this feature deserves to be folded into the overall picture — beneficiary clause, alignment with life insurance, inheritance goal. An angle the standard sales pitch almost always neglects.
Worked example — Florence, 53, salaried managing director in Aix-en-Provence
Florence, an employee-equivalent managing director, has an Article 82 funded by her company: a €300 monthly contribution, over 12 years, at a 4% return net of fees. The contribution is taxable at entry, but the capital stays available. Here is the projection.
| Criterion | Article 82 (available) | Equivalent locked-in scheme | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative contribution over 12 yrs | ≈ €43,200 | ≈ €43,200 | — |
| Tax advantage at entry | none (taxed as salary) | deduction by TMI | − |
| Projected capital at term | ≈ €55,000 | ≈ €55,000 | — |
| Availability of the capital | at any time | locked until retirement | + freedom |
Illustrative example — figures simplified for clarity and not contractual.
Florence gives up the tax advantage at entry — her contribution is taxed as a salary top-up — but gains a freedom that neither the PER nor Article 83 offers: her capital of around €55,000 stays available at any time, and is transmissible. For a director whose professional horizon is shifting and who has already saturated 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 to a PER on the tax criterion alone — it would lose. It is judged on the freedom and transmissibility it brings, as a complement to the deductible schemes. It is an arbitrage between immediate advantage and availability, to be settled according to the manager’s overall situation, never by isolating the tax rate alone.
Flexibility against a tax advantage at entry
Unlike Article 83 or the PER, Article 82 gives no deduction at entry: the employer contribution is treated as a taxable top-up salary. In return, the employee gains freedom: the capital is not locked until retirement and can be recovered or transmitted. It is an arbitrage between an immediate tax advantage and availability.
This scheme is typically used to reward and retain a senior executive to whom one wants to offer flexible savings, or to complement a locked-in scheme with a liquid pocket.
Freedom has a tax price — sometimes, it is worth it
This simulator projects the capital built at term. But the value of Article 82 cannot be read on that figure alone: it is measured by the availability and transmissibility it brings, 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 transmission goal.
Balmont Conseil is an independent wealth-management firm, a member of ANACOFI, with no capital ties to a bank or an insurer. This independence lets us compare Article 82, the PER and Article 83 objectively, and select the contract across the whole market according to your interest alone — not the product a network is trying to place. Run your projection above, then book a call to arbitrate between tax advantage and freedom.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Article 82 give no deduction at entry?
Because the employer contribution is treated as a salary top-up, hence taxable at entry, unlike the PER or Article 83 where it is deductible. That is the price of its flexibility: by giving up the immediate tax advantage, the holder gains the availability of the capital and its transmissibility. It is an arbitrage between a tax advantage and freedom.
Is the capital really available before retirement?
Yes, that is the major feature of Article 82: unlike the PER and Article 83, the capital is not locked until retirement. The holder can recover it whenever they wish. This availability makes it a valuable liquid pocket, notably for a manager whose professional horizon is uncertain or who has already saturated their deductible wrappers.
Is Article 82 transmissible?
Yes, the contract can benefit the holder’s heirs, which makes it a transmission vehicle on top of being available savings. This feature deserves to be folded into an overall wealth picture, aligned with life insurance and the inheritance goal — an angle often neglected in the standard sales pitch.
Who is Article 82 relevant for?
It is typically aimed at a senior executive to whom the company wants to offer flexible, retaining savings, or at a manager whose estate is already saturated with locked-in schemes and who is looking to add a liquid pocket. It is not a tax-cutting tool, but an instrument of deferred remuneration and transmission: it complements the deductible schemes, it does not replace them.
Results are provided for purely illustrative and educational purposes, based on the parameters you enter and simplified assumptions (2026 taxation, constant return, excluding inflation). They constitute neither personalised investment advice, nor tax advice, nor an offer to subscribe. Some investments carry a risk of capital loss. Before any decision, speak with an advisor.