IP Box and Software: The Poitiers Administrative Court Breaks New Ground
Administrative Court of Poitiers, No. 2301859, 17 March 2026
While the tax authorities had denied Macompta.fr the benefit of both the IP Box and the Innovation Tax Credit, the Administrative Court of Poitiers draws a clear distinction between the two regimes. It recognizes the originality of the publisher’s software suite and grants access to the IP Box, while confirming the rejection of the CII. This ruling offers valuable insights into demonstrating the originality of software, allocating eligible revenue, and, above all, the autonomy of the IP Box regime from the CIR and the CII.
Facts and decision
Macompta.fr develops an online accounting software suite, marketed as a SaaS solution.
Following a tax audit, the tax authorities denied the company the benefit of the IP Box regime (Article 238 of the French Tax Code) as well as the Innovation Tax Credit (CII) for the financial years ending 30 June 2020 and 2021.
The Administrative Court of Poitiers ruled in favor of the company on the IP Box, but against it on the CII.
The originality of the software
To qualify for the IP Box, the software must be protected by copyright, which presupposes that it is original within the meaning of the French Intellectual Property Code.
The Court identified three technical choices made by Macompta.fr’s developers: the early adoption of an online architecture, the later move to a hybrid architecture, and the implementation of an automation system. Added to this is the design of interfaces and customizable chart-of-accounts structures tailored to the user’s profile.
These choices, the Court held, demonstrate a specific intellectual contribution and a personalized effort that goes beyond a purely automatic logic. They confer originality on the software suite.
One piece of evidence also caught the Court’s attention: the deposit of the source code with the Agency for Program Protection (APP), which provides a certain proof of the software’s date of creation.
A single option for a multi‑module solution
The tax authorities reproached the company for not opting in on an asset‑by‑asset basis, as generally required under Article 238(V) of the French Tax Code. The Court rejected this argument.
Since subscriptions provide access to the entire software suite — multiple modules, updates, and support — for a single global price, the company was entitled to treat the suite as an indivisible whole.
It could not allocate the option module by module without artificially reconstructing a pricing structure that its business model does not support.
Allocating eligible revenue: a validated cost‑based method
A SaaS subscription covers both the provision of the software (eligible for the IP Box) and non‑eligible services such as technical support, hosting, and maintenance.
To isolate the eligible share of revenue, the company built a cost‑based eligibility ratio:
- numerator: R&D expenses directly related to software development (developer salaries, IT -equipment, APP deposits, royalties, subcontracting);
- denominator: these same expenses plus the costs associated with non‑eligible services (support, hosting). This ratio is then applied to total revenue to determine the eligible portion.
The Court approved this method, which relies on verifiable, tracked, and properly documented elements (individual timesheets, hourly rates, and supporting documents for each category of expense).
What about the independence of the IP Box from the CII / CIR?
The company had also applied for the CII. The Court denied it but drew no negative inference regarding eligibility for the IP Box.
Administrative guidelines (BOI-BIC-RICI-10-10-10-20) define R&D eligible for the IP Box nexus by reference to the criteria used for the R&D Tax Credit (CIR).
The tax authorities often conclude from this that the lack of eligibility for the CIR (or even more so for the CII) is fatal to an IP Box claim. This ruling weakens that interpretation.
Our view is that the two regimes are autonomous (a dedicated article on this topic is forthcoming).
The IP Box has its own eligibility conditions, focused on the nature of the asset (software originality) and the structure of the income (licensing revenue).
The CIR (and the CII) follow a different logic, centered on incremental innovation or research efforts.
A software product may be original even if the work that produced it does not meet the strict requirements of the CIR.
It should also be recalled that the question of the link between the IP Box and the CIR was not explicitly raised before the Court. The tax authorities did not argue that the denial of the CII necessarily implied ineligibility for the IP Box, and the judge could not raise such a point on its own.
This ruling nonetheless provides a welcome example of IP Box eligibility independent of the CIR and the CII.
Conclusion
For software publishers, best practices are now well established: prepare the technical file from the moment the option is exercised, date developments through certified deposits, and build an eligibility ratio that is traceable in the accounts.
As for the autonomy of the IP Box in relation to the CIR, the question remains open — even if, on this point, our position is already clear.
Newsletter
Subscribe to the newsletter to stay informed about upcoming developments :