Since the summer of 2025, verification services have systematically proposed corrections to sole associates of SASU companies that have chosen the personal company regime. The reasoning behind these corrections is consistent: because the president of such a company does not receive a salary, they are not affiliated with any social security regime in their capacity as a company leader. As a result, their share of the company’s profit would not have supported any contribution on income from activity. This would place their income under property levies, with an overall rate of 17.2%, increasing to 18.6% for the most recent incomes. The Minister of Economy reaffirmed this analysis in his response to written question number 12673, published in the Official Journal on June 2, 2026. However, this administrative stance is considered fragile due to certain nuances in the legal text it refers to. Article L136-6 of the Social Security Code subjects certain incomes to the contribution on property income, under paragraph I, specifically "all incomes that fall into the category of industrial and commercial profits, non-commercial profits or agricultural profits," except those "that are subject to the contribution on income and replacement defined in articles L136-1 to L136-5." The choice of wording is significant. The heading of the same paragraph uses a different formula, excluding from the base the incomes "that have already supported the contribution" under articles L136-3, L136-4 and L136-7. This indicates that the legislator made a distinction: a non-cumulation rule applies when the activity contribution has been paid, and a field rule applies when the income, by nature, falls under the activity contribution. The administration's reasoning, however, replaces the second concept with the first. It infers that the absence of payment means the income is not subject to taxation. However, the question raised by the paragraph is not about whether the activity contribution has been paid, but whether the income is subject to it. A professional income that has not supported the activity contribution does not become a property income; it remains an activity income, subject to a different tax system. This wording has been consistently used, as noted by the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal in tax assessments from 2012 to 2014. Two recent decisions, made in different contexts from that of the SASU, support this interpretation. On November 15, 2024, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal ruled that trademark concession fees, received through a non-salaried activity carried out repeatedly, constituted professional incomes subject to the contribution on activity income. The court concluded that these fees could not be subject to the contribution on property income, "even if they have not actually been taxed under this contribution." The court granted an exemption, clearly stating that the absence of effective taxation under the activity income contribution does not affect the classification of the income. Similarly, on November 21, 2023, the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the majority manager of an SARL. The administration had argued that no element indicated that the taxpayer had paid the activity contribution. The court, however, stated that such a situation does not allow the administration to apply a different social regime "unless it establishes that these incomes should be qualified as property incomes." This decision highlights that the lack of payment is not enough; the administration must positively establish the patrimonial nature of the income. The administration itself has acknowledged the distinction in its commentary on the choice of capital companies under the personal company regime. In § 160, it states that the share of the physical associate is taxable in the category of professional or non-professional profits, "depending on whether the associate exercises or not a professional activity in the company." In § 200, it refers to the associate who exercises a professional activity in the company that has opted for the personal regime as an "exploiter." In § 260, it distinguishes two regimes of social levies: when the share falls under a professionally conducted activity, it is subject to the generalized social contribution and the contribution to the repayment of the social debt under the activity income; it is only when it falls under a non-professionally conducted activity that it is "assimilated to property income." The numerical example in § 210 supports this explanation. The associate who exercises the management is classified as an "exploiting associate," whose share falls under professional industrial and commercial profits; the passive associate, who does not participate in the activity, falls under non-professional profits. The SASU president who alone exercises the activity of his company is, by construction, in the first situation. The response to written question number 12673 reflects the Government's position but does not create a new legal rule or bind the tax judge. It raises two key points. First, it links the classification of activity income to the payment of a remuneration to the president. This criterion is not present in paragraph I of article L136-6, which concerns the subject to taxation of the income itself. It also conflates two distinct incomes: the remuneration of the mandate and the share of profit due to the associate. Second, it does not address the distinction made by the 2014 doctrine or the jurisprudence of the judges of the merits. An administrative interpretation that ignores the published doctrine of the administration itself cannot implicitly report it. Three practical lessons emerge from this situation. First, the burden of proof: when a correction proposal only notes the absence of activity contribution, it does not satisfy the requirement established by the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal. The service must positively establish that the income is, by nature, a property income. This point must be raised from the outset in the observations. Second, the proof of activity: the defense is built on facts. The taxpayer must demonstrate their personal, direct, and continuous participation in the company's activity through contracts, invoices, and exchanges with customers. This demonstration makes them an "exploiting associate," in the very sense of the administrative doctrine. Third, the stage of the procedure: the observations in response to the correction proposal are the moment when the administration must respond point by point to the arguments raised. Experience shows that the services, when faced with an argumentation built on the text, jurisprudence, and doctrine, can be led to revise their motivation. The litigation is still in progress, and the question will be decided by the judge. However, in the current state of the law, the reasoning that equates a lack of payment with a property income runs into the wording of the text, the jurisprudence of the judges of the merits, and the published doctrine of the administration.