Quasi-usufruct over SCI cash: the restitution claim

Quick answer. Quasi-usufruct (Civil Code art. 587) applies to things that are consumed by use, such as money: the usufructuary can dispose of it, with an obligation to return the equivalent at the end. After the sale of a split asset, quasi-usufruct over the price lets the usufructuary reinvest the cash and creates a restitution claim for the bare owner, deductible from the estate subject to the rules of article 774 bis of the Tax Code.

When an SCI or a family sells an asset whose ownership is split, a practical question arises at once: who receives the price, the usufructuary or the bare owner? Quasi-usufruct offers a flexible answer, leaving the cash with the usufructuary while protecting the bare owner through a claim. But since 2024, this mechanism requires heightened care, because not all restitution claims are still deductible.

Quasi-usufruct is defined by article 587 of the Civil Code: it applies to things that cannot be used without being consumed, such as a sum of money.

Unlike classic usufruct, where the usufructuary must keep the thing and return it in kind, the quasi-usufructuary can freely dispose of the money. In return, they must return the equivalent, in value, at the end of the usufruct, generally on their death. This restitution takes the form of a debt towards the bare owner.

Quasi-usufruct therefore turns a split right over a sum into freedom of use for the usufructuary, coupled with a deferred debt. This is what makes it valuable after the sale of a split asset.

When an asset held in usufruct and bare ownership is sold, the price must be allocated, and three routes open up.

The first is to split the price between usufructuary and bare owner under the age scale, each receiving their fraction. The second is reinvestment: the price serves to buy a new asset, onto which the split carries over identically. The third is quasi-usufruct: the usufructuary receives the whole price and can reinvest it freely, for example in the cash of an SCI or an investment, while contracting a restitution claim towards the bare owner.

It is this third route that interests the owner wishing to keep control of the cash while preparing transmission, in line with the strategies described in our article on the advantages and drawbacks of quasi-usufruct.

The restitution claim is the usufructuary's debt towards the bare owner, equal to the amount handed over.

On the extinction of the usufruct, the bare owner becomes creditor of this sum against the usufructuary's estate. Economically, the bare owner recovers the value with no new tax, since the claim is deducted from the estate. This is what made quasi-usufruct an efficient transmission tool.

To be enforceable against the tax authority, the claim must be formalised. We systematically recommend a registered quasi-usufruct agreement, which sets the amount, the nature of the use and the restitution terms. Without this formalisation, the deductibility of the claim becomes fragile.

The finance law for 2024 tightened the deductibility of restitution debts, and this point is now central.

Article 774 bis of the Tax Code provides that restitution debts relating to a sum of money over which the deceased had reserved usufruct are not deductible from the estate. Targeted first: the gift of a sum of money with reserved quasi-usufruct, now neutralised for inheritance purposes.

But the law provides essential exceptions. The rule does not apply to quasi-usufruct over the sale price of an asset whose ownership was split, provided it is shown that the debt was not contracted for a mainly fiscal purpose. Nor does it apply to the legal usufruct of the surviving spouse (Civil Code art. 757), or to the usufruct resulting from the special available portion between spouses (art. 1094-1).

Quasi-usufruct over the sale price of a split asset remains a relevant tool in 2026, precisely because it benefits from an express exception within article 774 bis. The cash can be kept and reinvested by the usufructuary, and the restitution claim remains deductible from the estate, provided no mainly fiscal aim is pursued.

The essential reflex is formalisation. A registered quasi-usufruct agreement, justifying the origin of the sum and the wealth objective of the arrangement, secures the deductibility. Conversely, quasi-usufruct born of a simple gift of cash is now far less attractive, which we explain to clients tempted to reproduce a pre-2024 scheme. The distinction lies in the origin of the usufruct, not the mere presence of a claim.

A couple had given the bare ownership of a flat to their children a few years earlier, keeping the usufruct. On the sale of the asset, the question of the price arose. Rather than splitting the funds immediately, the parents opted for quasi-usufruct over the price, formalised by a registered agreement, in order to reinvest the cash in an SCI. The restitution claim for the children, based on the sale price of a split asset, remained deductible from the estate under the article 774 bis exception. The arrangement was documented to show the absence of a mainly fiscal purpose.