In the absence of detail, under both fiscal (CGI, art. 80 duodecies) and labour (CSS, art. 242-1) provisions, an indemnity for violation of protective status is subject to tax and social contributions. This was the position of the URSSAF of the Pays de la Loire. It is also the position of the 2nd civil chamber.
The Cour de cassation indeed adopted a restrictive position:
“Given that in allowing this appeal, the ruling upholds that sums paid on termination of an employment contract and being of a remunerative nature are subject to social security contributions, that an indemnity for breach of protective status paid to a dismissed employee sanctions the employer's misunderstanding of the employee's protective status, but does not remedy the harm suffered by the employee by way of termination of their employment contract, and is not therefore in addition to the salary; that the fact that it is not referred to in Art 80 duodecies of the CGI as not constituting taxable income arises from the fact that it does not compensate the prejudicial consequences of termination of the employment contract; that its compensatory nature excludes it from being subject to social contributions;
That in so ruling, the court of appeal violated the aforementioned texts”.
The response is clear and certain.