Dual tax residency: how the convention resolves the issue

When France and another state each consider you a resident under their domestic law, the "Residence" article of the tax treaty resolves the conflict. According to the French tax authority's BOFiP (Official Bulletin of Public Finances), the treaty definition of "resident" takes precedence over the "tax domicile" of domestic law. The treaties we have reviewed apply criteria in a specific order: permanent home, then center of vital interests, then habitual residence, then nationality, and finally an agreement between the competent authorities. The wording varies from one treaty to another: this page cites two treaties we have read, the Franco-British and the Franco-Belgian, and does not generalize to any other country.

When conflict arises

French domestic law recognizes three alternative criteria: principal residence or place of residence, principal professional activity, and center of economic interests. Only one is required. Another state applies its own criteria, which may lead to the same result for the same person. The "Resident of France" page on impots.gouv.fr (updated 27/01/2026) describes this situation: a person may be considered domiciled in another country according to its legislation, and "this conflict can be resolved by examining the 'Residence' article of the convention." See French tax residence: the three criteria of Article 4 B.

What the BOFiP says

The BOFiP BOI-INT-DG-20-10-10 (version of 12/09/2012, displayed as being in force) sets out three ideas:

• when a convention applies, the conventional meaning of "resident" takes precedence over that of "tax domicile" under domestic law (the BOFiP uses the verb "will prevail"); ;
• A person considered to be a resident of the other State within the meaning of the convention cannot be treated as domiciled in France under domestic law; ;
• The order of determination (§ 60) is as follows: a person is a resident of the State where they have their permanent home; if they have their home in both States, of the State with which their personal and economic ties are closest; if these ties cannot be determined, of the State where they habitually reside; if they habitually reside in both States or in neither, of the State of which they are a national. The passages read in § 60 do not address the case of a person without a home in either State, nor the agreement between authorities.

In the passages reviewed, this BOFiP (Official Bulletin of Public Finances) does not define any of the terms used for the tie-breaking process and does not explain how the agreements might alter this order. For the meaning of "permanent residence" or "usual residence," the relevant agreement must be consulted.

First text read: the Franco-British convention

The Convention of 19 June 2008 defines in Article 4, paragraph 1, "resident of a Contracting State" as any person who, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management, or any other criterion of a similar nature. The term does not include persons who are liable to tax in that State only on income and capital gains from sources situated in that State.

Article 4, paragraph 2, organizes the determination in four sections. A natural person is considered a resident only of the State:

• where she has a permanent home; if she has one in both States, in the one with which her personal and economic ties are closest (centre of vital interests); ;
• if the center of vital interests cannot be determined, or if she has no home in either of the two States where she habitually resides; ;
• if she habitually resides in both States or in neither of which she is a national; ;
• If she possesses the nationality of both States or of neither, the competent authorities decide the matter by mutual agreement.

Second text read: the Franco-Belgian convention

The convention of March 10, 1964, as read in its consolidated version published on impots.gouv.fr (the consolidation date is not displayed), places the rule in Article 1, paragraph 2, with different wording. The opening sentence reads: «An individual shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State in which he or she has a permanent home available to him or her.» When he or she has a permanent home available to him or her in both States, he or she is a resident of the State in which he or she has the center of his or her vital interests. If this State cannot be determined, it is the State in which he or she habitually resides; if he or she habitually resides in both States, the State of which he or she is a national; if he or she is a national of both States or of neither, the competent authorities shall decide the question by mutual agreement.

What the comparison of these two texts shows

The orders are similar, but the wording differs. These two readings are insufficient to describe another country's convention. For a given convention, the official text must be consulted. See the pages on our website for more information. the Franco-British convention and the Franco-Belgian convention detail these two texts; the List of conventions signed by France allows you to retrieve the text from another country.

What this page does not cover

It does not define the terms of the tie-breaking process, as the texts reviewed and the BOFiP (Official Bulletin of Public Finances) do not define them in the excerpts reviewed. It does not address the amicable procedure or the elimination of double taxation: see Avoiding double taxation: tax credit and effective tax rate. It also does not say which state considers you a resident: that depends on each country's law and an individual assessment.

Conventional tiebreaker: typical case (fictitious profile)

Situation. Five fictitious persons are each considered residents of France and another state under their respective domestic laws. The case study follows the order of the Franco-British text.

Issue. Each one wonders which state will prevail.

Strategy. We apply the cascade in order, step by step, stopping at the first one that makes a cut.

Result.

The deciding factor varies from 1 to 5 depending on the facts. The difficulty in a real case lies elsewhere: establishing the facts, because the texts consulted do not define permanent residence or habitual residence.

Dual residence: what changes depending on your situation

• The text of the convention between France and your other country of residence sets out the words and the order to be applied.
• Your facts (where you have accommodation available, where your personal and economic ties are, where you are staying, your nationality) determine the decisive step.
• An agreement may contain specific clauses that this page does not describe.
• An agreement between authorities only comes into play as a last resort, according to the texts read.

These points are examined on a case-by-case basis.