Surtax on large companies: scrapped by two votes, five billion euros to find

On Tuesday 27 October, shortly before 8 p.m., the Assemblée nationale deleted Article 15 of the 2027 finance bill. This article extended for a third year the exceptional contribution on the profits of large companies. The vote came down to two votes: 79 for deletion, 77 against, LCP reports. Le Figaro points out that the decision was taken against the government's advice.

The facts

Created in the 2025 budget for one year, then extended in 2026 after the use of Article 49.3, this surtax targets companies with at least 1.5 billion euros in revenue. For 2027, the government proposed renewing it at reduced rates: 15.7% instead of 20.6% for companies with revenue between 1.5 and 3 billion euros, and 31.4% instead of 41.2% above that, according to the details of the text published by Légifiscal. The expected yield thus fell from about 7.5 billion euros in 2026 to 5 billion in 2027, according to government estimates.

According to LCP, the deletion was backed by the Droite républicaine, the Rassemblement national, the UDR, Horizons and two Ensemble pour la République MPs. The left opposed it, as did the rapporteur and the government, which had given an unfavourable opinion on the nine deletion amendments.

This vote is not final. The formal vote on the whole revenue section is scheduled for 3 November, according to Journal du Net, and LCP considers it likely that this section will be rejected, followed by the use of Article 49.3 or ordinances. The government would then keep control of the final version.

The positions at stake

Supporters of the deletion invoke keeping one's word and competitiveness. Horizons MP Félicie Gérard argued, according to LCP, that an "exceptional" contribution renewed three years in a row is no longer really exceptional. Ensemble pour la République MP Charles Sitzenstuhl sees it as a handicap in European and international competition:

un boulet aux pieds des entreprises — Charles Sitzenstuhl

These arguments deserve a hearing. A state that promises a temporary measure and extends it indefinitely undermines investor confidence, and Eurostat comparisons place France among the European countries with the highest levels of compulsory levies. The Rassemblement national, through Jean-Philippe Tanguy, for its part denounced a tax policy made of "rustines" (patches), with no overall coherence.

On the left, the reading is the opposite. The chair of the finance committee, Éric Coquerel (LFI), believes this vote widens the deficit by 5 billion euros, LCP reports. Socialist Estelle Mercier argued instead for a return to the 2025 level. Economy Minister Roland Lescure sought a middle way, saying the truth lay "un peu entre les deux" (somewhere in between) and that multinationals could contribute to the country's recovery.

The analysis

The first lesson is arithmetic. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu presented in September an effort of 54 billion euros to bring the deficit to around 4.8% of GDP, according to Public Sénat. This effort rests mainly on spending control: a freeze on the civil service pay index, and a slowdown in social and local spending. Removing 5 billion euros of revenue without offsetting it mechanically shifts the burden elsewhere. And elsewhere usually means public services, local authorities and low-income households.

The second lesson is political. The vote brings together the right, the centre-right and the far right around a tax cut targeting some 300 large groups (according to an estimate by Les Échos reported by DAF Mag), while the rest of the country is being asked to make efforts. One can defend competitiveness without losing sight of national cohesion. Social Gaullism never set business against the general interest: it asked everyone to contribute according to their means, especially in difficult times.

The third lesson concerns method. With 77 and 79 votes, this ballot involved barely more than a quarter of the 577 MPs. A decision worth several billion euros thus hinges on who happens to be in the chamber on a given evening. Both camps should be concerned, because this fragility feeds the repeated use of Article 49.3, which everyone claims to want to avoid.

Finally, the debate over the "exceptional" nature of the surtax is legitimate, but it calls for a substantive answer rather than an outright deletion. If the contribution is to last, it is better to own it and build it into a clear reform of corporate tax than to renew it every autumn at the mercy of ad hoc majorities.

Conclusion

The government still has the tools to reinstate the measure, as it did in 2026. But the question goes beyond this single article. Rather than renewing a provisional tax every year, why not open a real debate on a permanent and proportionate contribution from the largest groups, together with a clear commitment on how the revenue is used, for schools, hospitals and the ecological transition?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.