Photovoltaic self-consumption: accounting and tax 2026

Quick answer. A solar installation owned by a company follows the tangible-asset regime: panels and fitting are capitalised and depreciated over their useful life. When the surplus is sold under the feed-in scheme (obligation d'achat), the income received is turnover to be recorded, with VAT deductible according to allocation. Key tax point: IFER only targets installations of at least 100 kW (CGI art. 1519 F).

Many directors approach their solar panels like a homeowner fitting them on their house. Once the installation is owned by an SAS, an SARL, an EURL or an SCI subject to corporate tax, the reasoning changes entirely: you enter a business logic of capitalised asset, depreciation, VAT, tracking of any surplus revenue, and care around a tax threshold. The subject overlaps with the broader question of the accounting of a renewable-energy producer, but self-consumption has its own specifics. Here is what we actually look at in these files.

Before recording any entry, you must settle the technical configuration of the grid connection. It is the connection, not the initial intention, that determines the accounting treatment.

• Full self-consumption: all the electricity produced is consumed on site. There is no sale, hence no turnover linked to energy. The installation remains a capitalised asset, and its economic benefit shows up only as a lower electricity charge.
• Self-consumption with sale of the surplus: the company consumes part of its output and sells the excess fed into the grid. This sale takes place under the feed-in scheme (obligation d'achat), operated by EDF Obligation d'Achat, at a regulated tariff set in the contract. The surplus delivered, valued at that tariff, generates income to be recorded.

The distinction is not merely administrative. In the first case, you have no invoicing to issue and no income to track. In the second, you become a seller of electricity, even on a very small scale, which opens an annual tracking chain.

When there is a sale of the surplus, the feed-in contract sets a regulated tariff for its whole term. Turnover corresponds to the volume of surplus actually delivered to the grid, valued at that tariff. In practice, this revenue is generally modest compared with the main gain, which remains the saving on electricity achieved through self-consumption.

Our reading: the item to watch is less the amount than the regularity of invoicing and the matching of income to the correct period. The feed-in contract runs over many years. You must therefore track the meter readings, any indexation set out in the contract, and the consistency between declared output and recorded income. An unexplained gap between energy fed in and turnover recognised is exactly the kind of anomaly that surfaces during a review of the accounts.

Hayot Expertise tip. File the feed-in contract in your permanent records as soon as it is signed, with its effective date and its term. It is the document that will justify, year after year, the matching of the surplus income. Without it, the tracking has to be rebuilt under pressure at closing.

For self-consumption with sale of the surplus, an investment grant may be paid. Its amount depends on the installed capacity and is revised periodically by tariff order. We never estimate it in advance: we verify it at the time of grid connection, based on the scheme applicable on that date.

The point of vigilance is purely accounting. This grant is a subsidy linked to the investment and must be treated as such, not left in a suspense account. The underestimated risk, in the files we take over, is a grant received but never properly matched: the result of the relevant period is distorted, one way or the other depending on the method chosen.

The way a capital subsidy is recorded and possibly released in step with depreciation is not neutral on the taxable result. This is precisely a trade-off we set with the director, in line with the overall strategy of the file and, where relevant, with support on business taxation.

For a taxable business, the VAT on the purchase and installation of the panels is deductible under standard rules, depending on the allocation to the taxed activity. The panels are a tangible asset depreciated over their useful life, in line with the French general chart of accounts.

The most common error is to transpose the regime for private individuals, for whom VAT is not deductible. The treatment differs entirely depending on whether the installation is owned by an individual or by a company. A director who paid the invoice personally, then seeks to move it into the company, often ends up in a situation that is hard to put right.

In practice, we separate the components to set consistent depreciation periods:

1. The photovoltaic modules, which have the longest useful life of the set.
2. The inverter, whose useful life is often shorter and which will be replaced at least once over the life of the array.
3. The fitting and mounting structure, included in the cost of the asset.
4. The grid connection, treated according to its nature and its link to the installation.

This breakdown avoids depreciating an inverter over the life of the modules, which would artificially shift the charge and complicate the asset disposal when it is replaced.

The flat-rate tax on network companies (IFER) targets electricity-generating installations with a capacity of at least 100 kW, photovoltaics falling under article 1519 F of the French General Tax Code. The vast majority of rooftop installations of small and medium-sized businesses stay below this threshold and are therefore not affected.

Above it, IFER becomes a recurring cost to budget each year. This is a point we check from the project study stage: a sizing that brushes against 100 kW deserves an informed trade-off between extra capacity, its yield and a lasting tax cost. For a business steering its cash flow, gaining a few kilowatts of output may not offset the appearance of an annual tax charge. This kind of trade-off falls within the scope of an outsourced finance-director engagement when the project is significant.

A few configurations fall outside the standard scheme and call for dedicated analysis:

• SCI subject to corporate tax with let premises: the allocation of the panels to a taxed activity must be checked carefully, since VAT deductibility and depreciation treatment depend on the actual use of the premises.
• Installation straddling two periods: invoice received in one period, commissioning and connection in the next. The start of depreciation and the matching of the grant must be placed in the correct period.
• Financing by loan or leasing: the financing method affects the capitalisation and the treatment of finance costs, without changing the underlying asset logic.
• Partial resale or shift towards full sale: a change of configuration during the asset's life transforms the income tracking and must be documented.

• Individual / company confusion: the non-deductible VAT and the simplified regime of the private individual do not apply to an installation owned by a company.
• Grant left in suspense: an unmatched capital subsidy distorts the result of the period.
• Surplus matching: OA income wrongly spread across periods, especially on indexed, long-term contracts.
• IFER threshold brushed: a sizing at the 100 kW limit can create an avoidable annual charge.
• Inverter over- or under-depreciated: useful life set on the modules instead of its own useful life.

In a recent file, an industrial SME had fitted its roof with an array in self-consumption with sale of the surplus, just below the 100 kW threshold. The installation invoice had indeed been capitalised, but the investment grant received in the year of connection was sitting in a suspense account, and the surplus income had not been recorded in the first period for want of a usable meter reading. The result: a period showing an artificially understated result, then a catch-up the following year that blurred the reading of performance.

Our conviction, after many files of this type, is that the value of a chartered accountant on this subject does not lie in posting the capitalisation entry, which is mechanical. It lies in three points: the correct matching of the grant, the disciplined annual tracking of the surplus, and the sizing trade-off against the IFER threshold. These are management decisions, not accounting reflexes. A director who secures these three points from commissioning spares themselves tedious corrections and obtains a faithful reading of the real profitability of the installation, which remains above all an energy saving. This is exactly the logic we apply to files in the renewable-energy installations sector.

1. Identify the configuration: full self-consumption or with sale of the surplus.
2. Obtain the feed-in (obligation d'achat) contract and the applicable regulated tariff.
3. Verify the amount of the investment grant at the time of grid connection.
4. Capitalise the installation and set depreciation periods by component.
5. Confirm allocation to the taxed activity for VAT deduction.
6. Check the installed capacity against the 100 kW IFER threshold.
7. Track surplus revenue each year and its matching to the correct period.

Every project has its specifics: legal form, allocation of the premises, sizing, connection timetable, financing method. To secure the accounting and tax treatment of your installation, talk to our Paris 8 chartered accountancy practice: we calibrate depreciation, VAT, feed-in contract tracking and grant treatment to your actual situation.