Client gifts, invitations to sporting events, business meals with a supplier: these common practices pose a problem as soon as they escape any formal framework. The gift and invitation declaration policy in companies aims to draw the line between legitimate business gestures and the risk of corruption. Between the URSSAF thresholds, the requirements of the Sapin II law, and the recommendations of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA), there are many guidelines to master.
URSSAF thresholds and B2B tax thresholds: two distinct logics not to be confused
A frequent confusion is to apply the same limits to employee gifts (via the CSE) and client gifts. The rules differ, however, based on the legal foundation, the amount, and the consequences of exceeding the limits.
| Type of gift | Reference | Exemption / declaration threshold | Consequence in case of exceeding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee gift (CSE, Christmas, back-to-school…) | URSSAF, 5% of PMSS | €200 per employee and per event in 2026 | Reintegration into the social contributions base |
| B2B client gift (VAT) | General Tax Code | €73 including tax per item and per year per beneficiary | Non-recoverable VAT beyond the threshold |
| Client gifts (general expenses report) | CGI, declaration no. 2067 | Annual cumulative exceeding €3,000 of distributed gifts | Obligation to declare to the tax authorities, fine in case of omission |
This table shows that the nature of the beneficiary (employee or third party) determines the applicable regime. A company that offers gift boxes to its clients at Christmas and gift vouchers to its employees for the same event is actually managing two parallel compliance circuits.
The framework of a gift and invitation declaration policy relies on precise knowledge of these thresholds; otherwise, internal procedures remain theoretical.
Seniority criteria and CSE gift vouchers: the URSSAF rule of 2026
Since January 1, 2026, URSSAF prohibits conditioning the allocation of exempt gift vouchers on a seniority criterion. An employee hired three weeks ago must receive the same benefit as a colleague who has been present for ten years, for the same event and the same amount.
This evolution changes the game for CSEs that practiced progressive scales. Any seniority criterion jeopardizes the social exemption on the entire lot distributed, not just on the excluded employees.
The exemption ceiling itself has progressed in recent years:
- €193 in 2024, then €196 in 2025, then €200 in 2026 per employee and per event, indexed to 5% of the monthly ceiling of Social Security.
- The benefit must not replace salary. A gift voucher given each month under the guise of a fictitious event would be reclassified.
- Each URSSAF event (Christmas, back-to-school, wedding, birth…) opens a distinct right. Accumulating several events for the same employee remains lawful as long as each allocation respects the unit ceiling.
Sapin II law and AFA recommendations: what the internal policy must formalize
The Sapin II law (law no. 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016) requires companies with more than 500 employees and generating significant consolidated revenue to implement an anti-corruption system. Gifts and invitations play a central role because they are the most common vector for passive corruption.
Three axes structure the system:
Definition of the scope and categories
The AFA recommends clearly distinguishing between material gifts, invitations to events (sporting, cultural, professional), and hospitality expenses (meals, accommodation, transport). Each category calls for different thresholds and authorization procedures.
Declaration procedure and validation circuit
A centralized register, accessible to the compliance officer, must record each gift or invitation received or offered beyond a threshold defined internally. The AFA guide emphasizes traceability: date, identity of the giver and receiver, estimated value, professional reason. Without a register, the policy remains a document without operational scope.
Internal sanctions and articulation with criminal law
The policy must provide for graduated disciplinary sanctions in case of non-compliance. These sanctions are in addition to the criminal penalties provided by the penal code for active and passive corruption.
The existence of a formalized and genuinely applied policy is, moreover, an element that courts take into account to assess the good faith of the company.
Gift and invitation register: concrete pitfalls to anticipate
Having a register is not enough. Several recurring pitfalls weaken the compliance system.
The first concerns under-reporting. When the internal declaration threshold is set too high, the majority of gifts go under the radar. The AFA recommends setting this threshold at a realistic level, even if it means simplifying the procedure for small amounts.
The second pitfall concerns symmetry. A credible policy regulates both received and given gifts. Only controlling incoming gifts leaves a blind spot on outgoing commercial practices, which are nonetheless subject to active corruption.
The third trap is the absence of post-control. A register that is filled out but never analyzed does not fulfill its preventive function. Periodic reviews allow for the identification of abnormal concentrations and adjustments to the rules if necessary.
The management of gifts and invitations involves crossing social obligations (URSSAF), tax obligations (VAT, general expenses report), and criminal obligations (Sapin II law). Separating these three dimensions in internal procedures reduces both the risk of reassessment and the criminal risk.
The threshold of €200 per event for employee gifts in 2026 and that of €73 including tax for VAT recovery on client gifts remain the two numerical benchmarks to keep in mind for daily decision-making.