The 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 admitted to the bars of Paris and Montreal, and operating as Legal Counsel in the United Arab Emirates.
The recent case concerning Samir Nasri has garnered particular media attention, reducing a taxpayer's tax residence to anecdotal evidence relating to consumption habits in France, in this case, Uber Eats and Deliveroo orders. Such an approach is legally inaccurate 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 opposing 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 evidence
The highly publicized elements, such as 212 Deliveroo orders placed in Paris, in no way constitute an autonomous legal criterion for determining tax residence.
In tax law, the qualification of residence cannot result from an isolated element, but stems from a bundle of consistent clues making it possible to assess the reality of the taxpayer's situation.
The administration's reasoning is based on Article 4 B of the General Tax Code , which uses alternative tax residence criteria to determine your tax residence (meaning only one of them is sufficient):
the home or principal 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 a tax domicile in France according to French tax law.
In practice, the criterion of the main 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 determining factor. Without constituting an automatic rule, this threshold is, in practice, difficult to overturn in order to rule out the first criterion of tax residence, i.e., that of the permanent home.
The elements publicly mentioned in this case point to a presence that could reach nearly 200 days per year on French territory. If this data were confirmed, and established by probative elements 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 objectified data, including notably the location of the declared main 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 origin of economic and bank flows.
In a Franco-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 administration, the FTA, examines many criteria to issue this TRC, including the travel report, which must rigorously show 183 days in the 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 element of proof among others and cannot, on its own, prevent a recharacterization if the factual elements are contradictory.
Thus, consumption elements (notably Deliveroo orders) certainly constitute one factual element among others that supports this taxpayer's tax residence in France.
Deliveroo orders represent only the visible expression of an analysis based, in reality, on the reconstruction of the actual presence and lifestyle of the taxpayer.
In the present case , the file shows that the taxpayer owned three real estate properties in France and that he spent 153, 126 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.
As such, 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 (third criterion for determining tax residence), he signed a service provision agreement with a French media company for 45 shows, representing potentially 45 days of filming; he was the sole shareholder of a French SARL (which may feed a presumption of economic connection to France); and he was the majority shareholder of an corporate income tax (IS) real estate investment company (SCI) owning a commercial premises in Paris.
If we take our three French tax residence criteria applied to the case at hand:
on the criterion of the permanent home: 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 Parisian apartment, which was supposed to be a secondary residence since he had Deliveroo deliveries there (this is the key media revelation 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 these years concerned, the criterion of the permanent home therefore points in favor of a connection to France.
on the family criterion: he is single and without children, so the criterion is irrelevant 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 main residence when he stays in France). At this stage, we do not have details on his foreign property holding nor on the existence of a residential lease in the Emirates. Regarding his active income, he signed a service provision 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 a corporate tax-paying SCI owning a commercial premises (presumably leased). In the absence of factual elements proving that he has foreign income, and more specifically Emirati income, higher than his French income, the economic criterion also seems oriented towards France.
As such, 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 or even non-existent, even if the number of Deliveroo orders remained the same.
B. The relationship between domestic law and tax treaties: the primacy of the Franco-Emirati treaty
The determination of tax residence cannot be limited to domestic law alone.
In application of Article 55 of the Constitution , the regularly ratified Franco-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.
The result is that a taxpayer can 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 habitual residence. The significance of the number of days spent in France constitutes, in this respect, a structuring element.
As such, 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 Council of State decision recalling the supremacy of bilateral law over national law, this decision also concerning the Franco-Emirati bilateral tax treaty (which the lower courts had not taken into account).
The legal debate is therefore not about isolated elements, but on 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 if the France-Emirates tax treaty uses a hierarchical funnel logic and not the alternativeness of criteria for tax residence, it appears that Samir Nasri, from the very first criterion (of the permanent home), in the absence of contrary evidence, seems attached to a French tax residence since over the three tax years concerned, he would have 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 any official address in the Emirates during this period. The study of family or economic interests is therefore no longer even necessary at this stage.
II. The state of the proceedings: an advanced conservatory phase, prior to any judgment on the merits
A. A protective decision devoid of authority on the merits of the dispute
Contrary to some media presentations, no final decision has, to date, been rendered on the taxpayer's tax residence.
The procedure originates from a tax audit that led to a proposal of assessment currently being contested.
Protective measures have been implemented by the tax administration, notably bank account seizures and a judicial mortgage on real estate.
Mr. Samir Nasri summoned the public accountant before the Judicial Court of Paris for the purpose of removing the protective seizure and the mortgage, for procedural and formal reasons, and not on the merits of the case, which does not, at this stage, seem to be directly contested.
Nevertheless, these measures were validated by the Judicial Court of Paris on March 12, 2026, the court having refused to declare the expiration of the mortgage and the protective seizure, on the grounds that the irregularity of certain procedural acts did not lead to the invalidity of these same acts.
Regarding the validity of the measures, the judge may order the lifting of the protective measures if they believe that in principle the claim (here, the proposal of assessment 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 under the Real Estate Wealth Tax for the years 2019 to 2025. The scope of this decision should be clarified. It does not constitute a judgment on the merits.
The judicial judge did not rule on the tax residence (this issue falling under the jurisdiction of the French tax administration, then, in the event of a dispute, of the administrative court of first instance), but merely assessed 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 information reported in the press suggests that his tax residence is indeed in France.
B. Upcoming litigation stages: a dispute still completely open
The procedure is currently in an intermediate phase.
On one hand, the tax reassessment is being contested. This is part of the tax litigation process, involving, if necessary, referral to the competent tax judge, usually the administrative court.
It is in this context that the central issue of the effective tax residence will be decided, both under domestic law and the France-UAE Tax Treaty.
On the other hand, the protective measures can be appealed, particularly regarding their proportionality or validity.
In the event the reassessment is confirmed, the financial consequences will include the recalled duties, late 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 reminds us that tax residence is not deduced from a simple declaration, nor from a claimed status, but from a concrete analysis of the reality of the taxpayer's lifestyle, first and foremost of which is the time of presence in the territory as well as all the objective elements allowing to justify it (TRC, Travel report, property title, residential lease, etc.).
In this regard, elements from daily life, including consumption data such as meal orders, do not constitute autonomous criteria, but participate in the reconstruction of the actual 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 claims upstream of the litigation on the merits, by implementing precautionary measures based on a simple appearance of a claim.
This approach, validated by the enforcement judge, is part of 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.
