Samir Nasri Case: tax residency France – United Arab Emirates, between a bundle of indices and procedural strategy
News
Published
Table of Contents
By the international tax law team at Expats Law Firm, an international tax law firm, registered with the Paris and Montreal bars and practicing as Legal Counsel in the United Arab Emirates.
The recent case concerning Samir Nasri attracted particular media attention, reducing a taxpayer's tax residence to anecdotal elements relating to consumption habits in France, in this case Uber Eats and Deliveroo orders. Such an approach is inaccurate in law and requires clarification.
This article aims to distinguish, on the one hand, the substantive rules applicable to the determination of tax residence between France and the United Arab Emirates and, on the other hand, the status of the proceedings between Mr. Samir Nasri and the French tax administration as well as the upcoming litigation steps.
.
I. Determination of tax residence between France and the United Arab Emirates: primacy of reality over appearances
A. Orders / consumption on French territory: one index among others in a body of corroborating evidence
The highly publicized elements, such as 212 Deliveroo orders placed in Paris, by no means constitute an autonomous legal criterion for determining tax residence.
In tax law, the classification of residence cannot result from an isolated element, but stems from a bundle of corroborating indices making it possible to assess the reality of the taxpayer's situation.
The administration's reasoning falls within the framework of Article 4 B of the General Tax Code, which uses alternative tax residence criteria to determine your tax residence (meaning that only one of them is sufficient):
the home or primary place of residence;
the exercise of a primary professional activity; as well as,
the center of economic interests.
Meeting just one of these criteria is sufficient to characterize tax domiciliation in France according to French tax law.
In practice, the criterion of the primary place of residence is of particular, if not predominant, importance under French law, but also under bilateral law (under the France–Emirates tax treaty, in this case). A presence in France exceeding 183 days per year is obviously a decisive indicator. Without being an automatic rule, this threshold is, in practice, difficult to overturn to rule out the first criterion of tax residence, namely that of the permanent home.
The elements discussed publicly in this case indicate a presence that could reach nearly 200 days per year on French territory. If this data were confirmed, and established by reliable evidence other than simple plane tickets, it would constitute a central element of the analysis.
It should be noted that, in this type of dispute, the administration does not rely on anecdotal elements, but on objective data, including in particular the location of the declared primary residence, the presence of other members of the tax household (the immediate family, namely wife and children), travel data including presence in the different territories, information from immigration authorities, as well as the source of economic and banking flows.
In a French-Emirati context, a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the tax authorities of the United Arab Emirates can be produced and generally brings probative force to the legal debate. Indeed, the Emirati tax authority, the FTA, examines many criteria to issue this TRC, and in particular the travel report, which must rigorously show 183 days on Emirati territory if the taxpayer wishes to receive a TRC for Tax Treaty Purpose (the only type of certificate in principle opposable to France).
However, such a document constitutes only one piece of evidence among others and cannot, on its own, stand in the way of a reclassification if the factual elements are contradictory.
Thus, consumption elements (notably Deliveroo orders) certainly constitute one factual element among others that helps support the tax residence of this taxpayer in France.
The Deliveroo orders only represent the visible expression of an analysis based, in reality, on the reconstruction of the taxpayer's actual presence and lifestyle.
In this case, it appears from the file that the taxpayer had three real estate properties in France and that he had spent 153, 126 days, and 208 days in France in 2021, 2022, and 2023 respectively, compared to 42, 124, and 60 days in the Emirates over the same tax years respectively.
In this regard, the data seems to have been cross-referenced from airline ticket reservations and not from a travel report or an official TRC accurately reporting the number of days in each country. It also appears that he had 212 Deliveroo meals delivered to his Paris address.
Furthermore, regarding his active economic income (the third criterion for determining tax residence), he signed a service provision agreement with a French media company for 45 shows, potentially representing 45 shooting days; he was the sole partner of a French SARL (which can support a presumption of economic connection to France); and he was the majority partner of an French real estate company (SCI) subject to corporate tax (IS) owning commercial premises in Paris.
If we apply our three French criteria for tax residence to the case at hand:
on the permanent home criterion: he spent strictly more time in France than in the Emirates over the three tax years concerned; he was also present on more than 212 occasions in his Paris apartment, which was supposed to be a secondary residence since he had Deliveroo deliveries sent there (which is the whole media outcome of the case). In the absence of a Tax Residency Certificate (or an official travel report from the Emirates) proving that he spent more than 183 days in the Emirates over the years concerned, the permanent home criterion therefore argues in favor of a link to France.
on the family criterion: he is single and has no children, so the criterion is inapplicable as it stands.
on the economic criterion: he has three real estate properties in France (likely generating passive income, and one of them visibly serving as his primary residence when he stays in France). We do not have, at this stage, details on his foreign property ownership or on the existence of a residential lease in the Emirates. Regarding his active income, he signed a service agreement with a French media company requiring at least 45 days of presence in France; he is a shareholder and manager of a SARL (without the amount of income from this company being specified); and also a majority partner in an SCI subject to corporate tax holding commercial premises (likely leased out). In the absence of factual elements proving that he has foreign income, and more particularly Emirati income, higher than his French income, the economic criterion also appears geared towards France.
In this respect, it is highly likely that if Samir Nasri were in a situation where he had spent strictly more than 183 days in the Emirates over a tax year and his income came essentially from income outside France, the provisional measures would have been very different, if not non-existent, even if the number of Deliveroo orders remained identical.
B. The connection between domestic law and tax treaties: the primacy of the French-Emirati agreement
The determination of tax residence cannot be limited to domestic law alone.
Pursuant to Article 55 of the Constitution, the duly ratified French-Emirati tax treaty takes precedence over French tax law.
While domestic law is based on alternative criteria, the tax treaty introduces a hierarchical logic, based successively on the permanent home, the center of vital interests, habitual residence, and then nationality.
As a result, a taxpayer may be regarded as a French tax resident within the meaning of Article 4 B of the General Tax Code, while being considered a resident of the United Arab Emirates within the meaning of the treaty.
In a situation such as the one in question, the analysis necessarily focuses on the location of the center of vital interests and on the determination of the habitual residence. The significance of the number of days spent in France constitutes, in this regard, a structuring element.
In this regard, we refer you to another article written by our firm Expats Law Firm: https://conseil-avocate.com/zoom-sur-larret-du-conseil-detat-du-20-mars-2023-venant-rappeler-la-valeur-juridique-des-conventions-fiscales-bilaterales-sur-le-droit-interne-francais-qui-devrait-rassurer-les-non-residents-francais/ explaining the decision of the Council of State recalling the supremacy of bilateral law over national law, this decision also concerning the bilateral French-Emirati tax treaty (which the lower courts had not taken into account).
Therefore, the legal debate does not concern isolated facts, but the overall consistency between the declared residence in Dubai and the reality of the taxpayer's center of life.
In this case, the same analysis must be maintained and remains similar in treaty law under the France-Emirates tax treaty, since even though the France-Emirates tax treaty applies a hierarchical, funnel-type logic rather than alternative criteria for tax residence, it appears that from the very first criterion (the permanent home), in the absence of contrary evidence, Samir Nasri seems linked to a French tax residence since, over the three tax years concerned, he reportedly spent more time in France than in the Emirates without spending more than 183 days in the Emirates and he does not seem to have had any official address in the Emirates during this period. Studying family or economic interests is therefore not even necessary at this stage.
II. State of the proceedings: an advanced protective phase, prior to any judgment on the merits
A. A protective measure devoid of authority on the merits of the dispute
Contrary to some media reports, no final decision has been rendered to date regarding the taxpayer's tax residence.
The procedure originates from a tax audit that led to a proposed rectification that is currently being contested.
Protective measures have been implemented by the tax administration, notably bank account seizures and a judicial mortgage on a real estate property.
Mr. Samir Nasri summoned the public accountant before the Judicial Court of Paris to obtain the release of the protective seizure and the mortgage, on procedural and formal grounds, and not on the merits of the case, which does not seem, at this stage, to be directly contested.
Nevertheless, these measures were validated by the Judicial Court of Paris on March 12, 2026, with the court refusing to declare the lapse of the mortgage and the protective seizure, on the grounds that the irregularity of certain procedural acts did not lead to the nullity of those same acts.
Regarding the validity of the measures, the judge can order the release of the protective measures if he considers that in principle the claim (here, the proposed rectification following the tax audit, and therefore the recharacterization of the taxpayer's tax residence) is unfounded.
The Judicial Court, on the contrary, ruled that the claim appeared to be well-founded and that there was therefore, in principle, a debt in favor of the French tax administration of 5,225,000 euros in respect of income tax for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, and of 82,000 euros in respect of the Real Estate Wealth Tax for the years 2019 to 2025. It is necessary to clarify the scope of this decision. This does not constitute a judgment on the merits.
The judicial judge did not rule on the tax residence (this issue falling within the competence of the French tax administration, then, in the event of litigation, the administrative court in the first instance), but confined himself to assessing the apparent validity of the tax debt as well as the existence of a risk of non-recovery.
This decision authorizes securing measures, without prejudging the outcome of the merits of the tax dispute, even if the elements reported in the press suggest that his tax residence is indeed in France.
B. Future litigation steps: a dispute that is still entirely open
The procedure is currently in an intermediate phase.
On the one hand, the tax reassessment is being contested. This is part of the tax litigation procedure, involving, if necessary, referring the matter to the competent tax judge, generally the administrative court.
It is within this framework that the central question of actual tax residence will be decided, in light of both domestic law and the France-Emirates tax treaty.
On the other hand, the protective measures can be subject to appeal, particularly regarding their proportionality or validity.
In the event the reassessment is confirmed, the financial consequences will include the back taxes, late payment interest, and, if applicable, penalties.
Thus, the decision of March 12, 2026, does not constitute the culmination of the dispute, but marks the entry into its decisive jurisdictional phase.
Conclusion
The Samir Nasri case illustrates, in a particularly clear manner, the contemporary developments in tax audits regarding international mobility.
On the merits, it serves as a reminder that tax residence is deduced neither from a simple declaration nor from a claimed status, but from a concrete analysis of the reality of the taxpayer's lifestyle, foremost among which is the time present in the territory as well as all objective elements allowing to justify it (TRC, Travel report, title deed, residential lease, etc.).
In this respect, elements of daily life, including consumption data such as food orders, do not constitute autonomous criteria, but contribute to the reconstruction of effective presence.
From a procedural standpoint, the decision highlights a now well-established practice of the tax administration consisting of securing the recovery of significant tax debts prior to litigation on the merits, through the implementation of interim measures based on a mere appearance of a debt.
This approach, validated by the enforcement judge, is in line with the logic of protecting the interests of the Treasury, without prejudging the outcome of the tax dispute, which falls under the jurisdiction of the tax judge.
Ultimately, tax residence results from the overall consistency between legal elements and factual reality. When this consistency is lacking, recharacterization becomes, in practice, difficult to avoid.
