Bill 3090, introduced by Paul Midy and other French MPs on 23 July 2026, addresses crypto taxation, directors’ protection and company financing. The document examined here is a legislative proposal, not a rule to apply in a tax return. This analysis concerns the introduced version, consulted on 10 September 2026. Parliamentary proceedings may change both its content and its timing.
For an entrepreneur, the distinction matters: preparing supporting records now is useful; assuming a proposed exemption or loss carry-forward already exists can cause a tax error. Consult the bill and parliamentary information at the official source, in French.
Six substantive proposals to distinguish
1. Governance tokens awarded to contributors
Article 1 proposes that, for certain individuals resident in France for tax purposes, the value of qualifying tokens received would not constitute taxable income in the acquisition year. It targets tokens carrying governance rights, awarded through a documented call for contributions in return for validated work. Financial instruments and purely financial support fall outside the stated scope.
This is not a general exemption for airdrops, staking or token remuneration. The bill also proposes coverage of certain awards made since 1 January 2024, but proposed retroactivity alone does not justify amending a return today. Retain the contribution rules, evidence of work, validation, dates, quantities and transfer restrictions.
2. A ten-year carry-forward for certain losses
Article 2 proposes extending the period over which losses under the individual regime in Article 150 VH bis may be offset. This differs from a company’s corporate income tax losses. A director must separate personal holdings from company assets before assessing the possible effect of the proposal.
3. A targeted exemption for small payments
Article 3 proposes an exemption for certain goods or services purchased using crypto-assets, subject to an annual cumulative €1,000 limit. This is a proposed threshold for the specified transactions, not a general allowance against every capital gain or an exemption from business accounting.
4. Disclosure of home addresses
Article 4 proposes masking directors’ home addresses except for the postcode, alongside obligations covering records already held by register operators. It also addresses cases where the business address is the home address and includes a penalty. These proposals need to be distinguished from procedures already available.
5. Certain personal protection expenses
Article 5 seeks to regulate company payment of expenses protecting directors or specified family members against threats connected with their functions. Conditions include substantiating the risk, proportionate expenditure, approval by the competent corporate body and retention of supporting records.
The proposal does not currently authorise a company to pay any private expense. The company’s interests, the expense’s tax and social treatment and applicable approval procedures must be assessed under existing law.
6. Access by SAS companies to certain DLT infrastructures
Article 6 proposes adapting the ability of French simplified joint-stock companies, or SAS, to offer financial securities exclusively through an infrastructure covered by the European DLT pilot regime. This concerns securities financing; it does not make every public token issue unrestricted. Instrument classification, offering rules and authorised intermediaries remain central.
These six proposals are summarised from the introduced text. Any adopted version and implementing measures must be checked before drawing operational conclusions.
Address protection: procedures already exist
You do not need to wait for this bill to review your data exposure. Decree 2025-840 of 22 August 2025 introduced procedures concerning the masking of home addresses in the French trade register and the handling of filed documents. INPI explains, among other options, replacing an existing filing with a redacted public version accompanied by a complete confidential version, and requesting address masking without filing a new document.
The appropriate procedure depends on the register, document and person’s role. Complete information must still be supplied to authorised authorities. INPI also states that the national business register, the RNE, does not disclose representatives’ home addresses. A business address that is also a home address creates a separate issue: moving the registered office, masking a personal address and removing historical copies from other websites are different actions. See INPI’s procedures and limitations, in French.
What we prepare with a director
- Separate ownership records: identify company assets, personal assets and transfers between them.
- A contribution file: contracts, protocol rules, work performed, validation, dates and token values.
- A public-exposure review: registry documents, the registered office, previous filings and public profiles, using the appropriate request for each source.
- A documented decision: where protective expenditure is considered, record its purpose, business connection, quotations and necessary approvals.
- A focused legislative check: verify the text’s status before filing a return, correcting a previous year or arranging financing.
Frequently asked questions
Does the bill abolish tax on crypto-assets?
No. It proposes separate, limited changes. Describing the entire bill as making crypto tax-free would be misleading.
Would the tax proposals automatically apply to my company?
No. Several provisions expressly concern individuals or their capital gains regime. Your company’s transactions require a separate assessment.
Can I already request protection for my address?
You can check eligibility for existing INPI and court registry procedures. Limiting public disclosure does not guarantee the disappearance of every older copy on the internet.
To work on your business organisation, explore our pages on holding companies and crypto treasury and company wallet management, or contact the firm with your circumstances and documents.