The four fee models in one paragraph each
Flat fee
A single number, agreed upfront, paid at completion, independent of sale price, gain, or complexity. Predictable, easy to compare, and the only model that caps your absolute cost. Typical on sales above €1 million, on repeat-client files, and on notaire referrals where the firm has visibility on the file shape.
Percent of sale price
The most common headline quote: a fraction of the gross sale price, roughly 0.3% at the top of the market and close to 1% at the low end. Simple to communicate, but it rewards the firm on sale price rather than on workload. On a straightforward €1.5 million sale you may end up paying twice what a proper flat fee would have cost.
Percent of gain
A fraction of the taxable gain declared on the 2048-IMM. Aligned with the substance of the file (the gain is what the firm actually guarantees) but unpredictable while the gain is being finalised. Usually quoted on files with low or uncertain gain, where the percent of sale model would produce a disproportionate number.
Hybrid
A fixed base (covering mandate opening, file handling, and the 2048-IMM) plus a variable component tied to sale price or gain. Fair when the base is genuinely fixed and the variable is capped. Dangerous when the base is a token number and the variable is uncapped.
Side-by-side on a €600,000 sale
The table below compares the four models on a representative non-resident sale: price €600,000, holding period eighteen years, declared gain €120,000. Figures are indicative market ranges, not quotes.
View data as table
| Model | Indicative fee (€) |
|---|---|
| Flat fee | 4,500 |
| Percent of sale price, 0.7% | 4,200 |
| Percent of gain, 5% | 6,000 |
| Hybrid, base €2,500 + 0.4% of sale | 4,900 |
Which model wins, and when
Below €300,000 the percent of sale model is almost always cheapest because the headline percentage stays modest and the base cost a flat fee would have to absorb is still significant. Between €300,000 and €800,000 the four models cluster inside a €1,500 window and the decision is about predictability rather than headline price. Above €800,000 flat fees pull decisively ahead, because a straight percentage on €1 million starts to look like overpayment for work that did not scale. Percent of gain only wins on low-gain files: a long holding period with strong tapers, or a deed bought near the top of the market and sold at a modest premium. Hybrid is attractive when the base is genuinely fixed and the variable is capped; it is the worst of all worlds when the base is low and the variable is not.
Worked example
An Australian couple is selling a Bordeaux townhouse for €780,000 bought in 2013 for €520,000. The declared gain after allowable costs is around €220,000. Firm Alpha quotes percent of sale at 0.65%, so €5,070. Firm Beta quotes a flat €4,800. Firm Gamma quotes percent of gain at 4%, so €8,800. Firm Delta quotes hybrid, €2,500 base plus 0.35% of sale, totalling €5,230. On this file the flat fee wins on headline and on predictability. The sellers sign with Beta, convert the number into an all-inclusive ceiling on the mandate, and pocket a €270 saving versus the next best and over €4,000 versus the percent-of-gain quote. The hidden value is the ceiling: had the file taken a turn (a late works invoice, an extra heir), the flat fee would not move.
Pitfall to avoid
The trap is a hybrid with an invisible floor. The firm quotes "€1,500 base plus 0.3% of sale" and you mentally anchor on the base. In the mandate, a clause specifies a minimum total fee of €4,500 regardless of the formula. You only discover this if you read the small print. On the small sale that made you choose the hybrid, the minimum kicks in and the hybrid costs more than a flat quote would have. Every hybrid has a floor in theory; ask for it in writing, and if the firm refuses to disclose it, the hybrid is a percent of sale wearing a disguise.
Pro tip
Request the mandate with two lines side by side: the headline fee under the model the firm proposes, and the equivalent flat fee the firm would accept for the same file. Every accredited firm knows the flat it would give; few firms disclose it unsolicited. Comparing the two numbers is the quickest way to see whether the proposed model rewards you or rewards the firm. If the flat equivalent is lower and the firm agrees to switch, sign the flat one. If the proposed model is genuinely cheaper, keep it, but insist on a ceiling at the flat equivalent so you cannot be worse off if the file shifts.
Key takeaways
- Four models dominate the French accredited market: flat, percent of sale, percent of gain, hybrid.
- No legal cap; market practice sits between roughly 0.3% and 1% of sale price.
- Below €300,000 percent of sale tends to win; above €800,000 flat fees pull ahead.
- Percent of gain only wins on low-gain files with long holding periods.
- Every hybrid has a floor; get it in writing before you sign.
Frequently asked questions
Which fee model is most common on real-estate sales?
Percent of sale price is the default quote most non-residents see first. Flat fees appear above €1 million; percent of gain is rarer and usually offered when the gain is small; hybrids are used on complex or high-value files.
Is there a legal cap on the fee percentage?
No statutory cap. Market practice ranges between roughly 0.3% and 1% of the sale price for real-estate CGT, but that is convention, not law. Always read the mandate: the number written there is the only one that binds the firm.
Can I ask the firm to switch from percent to flat?
Yes, and it is often in your interest above €800,000. A flat fee caps the absolute cost and removes the incentive misalignment that appears when the fee grows with the sale price regardless of the work involved.
Is the fee deductible from the taxable gain?
Yes, the fiscal representative fee is deductible from the taxable gain on the 2048-IMM, which reduces both income-tax CGT and social charges. See our separate guide on deductibility for the exact conditions.