allanb

We have some visitors from overseas for whom we arranged a two-week car rental here in France.  On the second day the car was vandalized - "keyed" I think is the technical term for what was done - and I have no doubt that we or they will have to pay for the damage. I'm sure that the cost will be less than the rather large deductible that we accepted, but my question is whether we have any options.  If the rental company comes up with an unreasonable charge for the repair, do we have any right to insist on a repairer of our choice? I'm not talking about trying to get away with a cheap back-street repair: I would go to a reputable body shop which I know quite well, and which is on the approved list of most of the local insurance offices. PS: I can't find the answer in the rental contract.

[quote user="Quillan"]... he is like a walking encyclopaedia ...[/quote] ... except that when I read an encyclopaedia I can usually understand it.

[quote user="parsnips"]First point-the 10% taken off the German income is the fixed 10% deduction allowed in France on all salaries and pensions, any German TAX is ignored so the figure is gross taxable income (after any German charges apart from tax.)[/quote] Sorry, I jumped to a false conclusion about what the 10% was.

[quote user="parsnips"][quote]EXEMPLE : Vous êtes marié sans enfant. En 2010, vous avez perçu : en France, un salaire de 30 000 € (après déduction forfaitaire pour frais de 10 %) ; en Allemagne, un salaire de 10 000 € (après déduction de 10 %). Votre revenu global (français + allemand) s'élève à 40 000 €. L'impôt correspondant pour 2 parts s'élève à 2 922 €. Le crédit d'impôt correspondant aux revenus de source allemande se calcule comme suit : 2 922 × 10 000 / 40 000 = 731 €. Ce crédit d'impôt s'impute sur l'impôt global."[/quote] (this is a similar calculation to that for the taux effectif , but used in a different way, the good thing is it seems to give the credit at the "taux effectif" rate --my note)[/quote]If this is indeed how it's computed, I'm not so sure it's a good thing.  The example implies that the German income was either 11,111€, from which tax of 1,111€ was deducted, or 10,000€, from which tax of 1,000€ was deducted.  I don't think it's clear which is meant, but anyway the poor taxpayer has paid either 1,111€ or 1,000€ in Germany, against which he's getting a credit of only 731€ against his French tax. Is that your understanding of how it works?

[quote user="Quillan"]Funny enough I was thinking about Allanb's comments the other week when they were talking about the fact that the price of fresh veg in the UK has gone up by over 4% in a month. This is something I mentioned might happen ages ago when Stirling started to collapse. As the likes of Tesco renegotiate their contracts with Pedro in Spain for his tomatoes, cucumbers etc, he is not concerned about the exchange rate, he just wants the same 'X' Euros per kilo. With a poor exchange rate the Stirling price therefore goes up whilst his selling price in Euros stays the same, but if the UK was in the Euro it wouldn't matter. There are loads of examples of this sort of thing if you look around and with failing crops due to the recent drought the UK more food will be imported from within the EU than normal hence prices will continue to rise.[/quote] That's a mighty complicated explanation for something that is really quite simple: When crops fail, vegetable prices rise because there is a shortage. This has been observed for hundreds of years and has nothing to do with Tesco or whether the UK adopts the euro. By the way, I think you should stop calling sterling "Stirling", otherwuse the Scots will start to think it's their own national currency.

I think cooperlola is right.  Is there a "je" somewhere before the word "déclare"?  If so, you are declaring that you request reimbursement of whatever it is.

Sorry to hear all that. Thank you for telling us.

Is there anyone who's had a tax audit and would be willing to tell us something about how it went?  I should make it clear that I'm not expecting one, and my conscience is fairly clear.  I'm just curious.  I don't know anyone who's been audited, and I wonder how often it actually happens. 

[quote user="Bugsy"]Does anyone know if it is now possible to change your existing plates to the new style?[/quote]One way to do it is to lose your carte grise.  The replacement will be issued with a new-style number; I don't think you have any choice.

I've posted this before and I know it wouldn't be the solution in every case, but here's something worth trying: go to your UK bank and ask if they have a correspondent relationship with a French bank and, if so, would they give you a letter of introduction.   (The "correspondent" bit isn't really necessary, but it can make some transactions quicker and easier.) Not all banks will do this, but in our case it worked like a charm.  Of course we had to fill in some forms and send copies of a few things, but nothing out of the ordinary, and the account was open and usable before we ever set foot in the bank.  It turned out that we didn't like the French bank very much and after two years we changed to another one.  But once you've established residence, that's fairly easy.

Apologies.  When I wrote 2042CK it wasn't a typo - I still have the form in front of me.  But on the list given in Cooperlola's link I see that it's shown as 2042-C, without the K. Sometimes I think there's no hope for the French tax office. (Cooperlola, you meant "2042", right?  - the blue form?)

[quote user="martyng"]Whilst doing the figures in rough first on the paper forms, I put my wife's self employed earnings (from work in the UK) on 2047 Sect V Benefices des Professions Non Commerciales (I am assuming that is right) - but then where do we take that forward onto the 2042? Is it one of the boxes in 8 Divers?[/quote]As I'm sure you've seen, it tells you to carry it over to the déclaration des revenus, section 5 - but there isn't a section 5 on the ordinary version of the blue form 2042. The trouble is that there are several versions of 2042 and I think you need to get nº 2042CK, which is labelled COMPLÉMENTAIRE.  It contains a very long "section 5" and the general heading corresponds exactly to the instruction on the pink form (revenus et plus-values des professions non salariées). But you then have to pick the right sub-section, and I'm afraid I don't know how you should do that, unless it's obvious from the nature of your wife's business. Good luck!

[quote user="cooperlola"]Now, fines or not, and enforced or not, your tax form does ask you to do it so why not?  [/quote]I agree, and I think there's a stronger reason.  If the tax people ever get aggressive over a wrong calculation or some other sin I've allegedly committed, I don't want them to be able to say "Oh, and by the way, it looks as though you've also failed to declare a foreign bank account." It will probably never happen, but why take the risk?

A Eurokraut is simply a cabbage that conforms to EU specifications.  Why all the fuss?

[quote user="Quillan"]People in the UK should be very worried if the Euro failed as Europe is its biggest trading partner and the effect would tear through like UK economy like a Tsunami... [/quote] Why? I am amazed at the number of people who seem to think that a common currency is automatically good for trade.  When the euro was first established, it was widely proclaimed that Europe was Britain's biggest trading partner and it would be essential to join the euro to preserve that trade.  Guess what? We stayed out and the sky did not fall in; Europe is still Britain's biggest trading partner.* If you want to trade with a country, or a region, the most important thing is its economic health: its people need to be able to buy what you produce.  The currency of payment hardly matters.  Greece (for example) has suffered because of its insistence on keeping the euro, even though its productivity can't keep up.  I'm sure that if it abandons the euro it will benefit: not because its new drachma will keep its initial value against the euro (it won't) but because it will be able to increase its level of employment and production. I don't deny that a common currency has some advantages.  Some transaction costs are reduced, and some accounting and administrative effort is saved (but not much: there are plenty of systems that will handle more than one currency, and if you can handle two you can handle five or ten). It also makes life easier for travellers, of course.  But I don't think the advantages come close to outweighing the costs; ask anyone trying to run a business in Greece or Ireland or Portugal.  Alternatively, ask anyone in Germany how he feels about his taxes being used to keep foreign banks in business. *For at least the last ten years, the value of the UK's trade with the EU has been greater than with all other countries combined; I assume that's what Quillan means, and I'm not disputing it. 

Going back to the OP, it might be useful to know three related French verbs that can cause confusion (but they are all useful): passer = to pass, in many senses. se passer = to happen. - qu'est-ce qui se passe?  = what's happening?  what's going on? (famous mistranslation: "what is it that passes itself?") dépasser = to pass [something], meaning to go past it. - je voulais dépasser le camion = I wanted to overtake the lorry

[quote user="pachapapa"]Surfaced in Haaretz this morning...just posturing...hot air...[/quote] I'm glad you've finally admitted that.  But what were you doing in Haaretz?

[quote user="Chancer"]I am not so sure now that I was actually so sure that there wasnt an exclusion, I also cannot recall giving the impression that I couldnt remember.[/quote] It must be terrible to have memory problems.  I can't remember the last time I forgot something.

[quote user="Rabbie"]IMO it would only have been relevant if the car was explicitly excluded from the policy. Would you really expect the policy to list that all cars belonging to neighbours and visitors were explicitly included yet they would be covered if they were damage by tiles blowing off the roof.[/quote]The clause I quoted excludes cars from coverage of damage to the policyholder's own property.  Anything, including a car, belonging to somebody else (neighbours, visitors, etc) would be covered under the policyholder's third-party liability insurance.  Chancer: I don't think anyone's playing the dummy here (although I liked the bit about intelligence).  All I did was point out that household insurance policies commonly exclude cars, but I should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about third-party liability. If there had been such an exclusion in your policy, the agent would have been right, wouldn't he?  Maybe you're sure that there wasn't such an exclusion, but you certainly gave the impression that you couldn't remember. Anyway, this discussion may have achieved something if it reminds people that the exclusions may be as important as the coverage.

I simply asked whether the car was covered by the policy.  If not, it doesn't make any difference what caused the damage.  If Chancer can't remember, what was the point of the story?  We'll never know whether the insurance company was right or wrong.

OK, if it wasn't a French policy, you won't find those words.  But the question remains: did your policy (the one you're complaining about) include damage to your car(s)? My last sentence only repeats the same point.  Was your car included in the things covered by the policy?  If not, why should the insurer pay?

[quote user="Chancer"]In the storm of 87 some tiles fell off my garage roof and beat the hell out of the car roof, my insurers refused to pay as it was my car and said I it was my neighbours car they would pay, if the tiles had damaged another part of my insured property they would pay, that I should claim from my car insurance...[/quote] If you look at the list of things that are insured under your household policy, I bet you will find something like this: Ne sont pas assurés: - les véhicules à moteur soumis à l'assurance automobile obligatoire... I may be wrong, of course, but this is very common.  If it is the case, why on earth should your household insurer pay for the damage to your car? I don't agree with the widespread idea that an insurer should pay for anything that happens, whether it's covered or not.

Rape, and attempted rape, unfortunately happen.  So do false accusations of rape.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to wait and see what the court thinks?

[quote user="Rob Roy"]When there was an accident with my laptop (water got spilt on the table and got into the laptop so it died - or drowned!) I rang the insurance agent to ask about making a claim and was told because it had happened in my own home I couldn't claim...[/quote] So the contents of your house are insured except when they are in your house!  That's ingenious. Seriously, is that all your agent told you? There are some odd details in insurance policies.  Maybe water damage would have been covered if caused by a burst pipe or a roof leak but not by an accidental spill.

I'm afraid I don't know much that will help you, but I know there is a legally recognised status called séparation de fait (separation in fact), and I believe that if this is established it may allow you to declare only your own income for tax purposes without being responsible for any income of your wife. Even if I haven't got that quite right, I think it's something you should investigate.  I suggest you talk to a notary, who can tell you not only what the effect will be, but also how you actually go about it.  Also, of course, he may know a better alternative. In my experience notaries (as opposed to lawyers) don't charge large fees for straightforward questions. Good luck!