During prud'homal conciliation, a process in France for resolving workplace disputes, employers and employees can reach an agreement on dismissal compensation. This compensation is based on a predefined scale, ranging from two months' salary for less than one year of seniority to twenty-four months for thirty years or more. This lump sum is generally exempt from income tax, but only up to the amount defined by the scale. Additionally, the exemption from social security contributions applies up to two annual salary ceilings, or 96,120 euros for 2026. However, this exemption disappears entirely if the severance payment exceeds ten annual salary ceilings. The ruling does not specify how the CSG (a type of social contribution) applies, but it cannot exceed the legal or conventional limits. In a case from 2013 to 2015, the Court of Appeal of Amiens validated a liability of 22,000 euros for the notice period, noting that the prud'homal request included salary-related demands and that the agreement did not confirm the employee's waiver of the notice period compensation. It applied the common law transaction regime, where sums are exempt from contributions only if the employer proves they repair a damage. This proof has been accepted in agreements that explicitly maintained the serious fault and excluded notice period compensation. However, the Court of Cassation criticized this analysis, stating that since the agreement was concluded before the conciliation office, the compensation was subject to Article L1235-1 of the Labor Code, and the exclusion of the base was tied to its non-taxable nature. This solution applies to the current law, as Article 80 duodecies still refers to the compensation under Article L1235-1. Up to the scale limit and within the two annual ceilings, the employer does not need to prove, as in a common law transaction, that the compensation repairs a damage. It is advisable to clearly distinguish in the minutes the lump sum based on the scale from any potential back pay or notice period compensation, which remain subject to contributions. In seven rectification items, the capped base and the additional family allowance contributions were determined using a ratio based on the number of employees whose salary reached the A bracket. The Court of Appeal annulled these entirely, arguing that this method, not provided for in any text, violated the principle of calculating on the real base. The Court of Cassation approved this annulment and rejected the Urssaf's request to keep the items at the level of the real bases previously used. The court emphasized that, outside of specific exceptions, no other method is allowed, even with the contributor's agreement. In a 2025 case, the court approved the annulment of rectification items based on a convention that distributed the regularization bases and used average payment rates for transport and work accidents. Regarding transport payments, the Urssaf had applied a uniform rate of 2% for all controlled establishments, which the company argued was an illegal lump sum calculation. This contribution, now called the payment for financing mobility services, is due at the rate set by the organizing authority to which the workplace belongs. The rate for the AT-MP contribution is determined annually by establishment, unless an option is made for a single rate per risk category. The Urssaf must verify that the employer applies the rates notified to them for each establishment. Failing to check whether the rates used were actually applicable, the Court of Appeal, relying on the company's lack of justification, ruled that its decision had no legal basis. This verification will now be the responsibility of the new Court of Appeal of Amiens, which will handle the case. Any surcharge based on contributions whose rectification is annulled also falls, including the 10% surcharge for lack of compliance. The Court of Appeal could not maintain this surcharge on two items it annulled, relying on the identity of the reasons with rectifications from a previous control. Challenged by the Urssaf, the admissibility of the argument was accepted, as the company had requested the annulment of surcharges related to irregularly calculated contributions before the trial judges. The Urssaf, required to refund improperly collected contributions, must pay interest from the day of the request, not from the date of the appeal court ruling. The capitalization only requires a legal request and interest for a full year, without this period needing to elapse when the judge rules.