/ 
Adopted in the 2026 Finance Bill, the reform of the TAEMUP âeuros the annual tax on pleasure craft âeuros is causing great concern in the nautical industry. CNP and FIN denounce a text deemed more complex than before, socially penalizing for small units and with no real environmental impact. With entry into force scheduled for January 1, 2027, the professionals are calling for urgent consultation to avoid an "unfair and ineffective" reform.
A reform voted in haste, without consultation
TAEMUP, the annual tax on personal watercraft, has been reformed as part of the Finance Bill for 2026. The principle of this tax was approved by the Comité interministériel de la mer (Cimer) on May 26, 2025, with the dual aim of simplifying the system and making it greener, by encouraging the use of alternative engines.
But according to CNP and FIN, the text finally adopted is a far cry from this intention. Introduced as a parliamentary amendment in the Senate, the reform was drawn up without any prior consultation with the yachting industry, even though its potential effects on the market are major.
In a joint press release dated February 3, 2026, Yves Lyon-Caen, President of CNP, and Jean-Paul Chapeleau, President of FIN, consider that " this reform must be rewritten in a concerted fashion before it comes into force in 2027".
A simplification announced, in theory
The first criticism is that, far from simplifying matters, the reform would make the calculation more complex for yachtsmen. The text introduces a scale indexed to engine power expressed in kW, with a progressive approach based on several categories applied in brackets.
For the industry, this mechanism leads to a paradoxical result: a tax that is harder to understand, and therefore harder to anticipate, especially for new users.
FIN explained that it had proposed a more straightforward alternative: a two-category scale, with an exemption for the first 60 kW, to limit threshold effects while maintaining the same yield. This proposal was not followed up.
A reform deemed unfair: small units in the front line
The other key point concerns the broadening of the tax base. According to CNP and FIN, the reform would suddenly bring into the scope of taxation categories of boats that were previously exempt.
Clearly, the reform would have a greater impact on small boats, family boating, recreational fishing, first-time buyers and modest yachtsmen. It's a choice that is of great concern to professionals, as these segments are one of the main drivers of the boating market.
For the organizations, the consequences are twofold: a tax burden deemed to be a deterrent to new entrants, and a risk of economic destabilization for companies in the sector, particularly those who make their living from selling, maintaining and equipping small units.
Deceptive "greening
On the environmental front, the industry points to a major inconsistency: the reform provides for a substantial allowance (from 50% to 75%) for electric and hydrogen engines. On paper, the signal is clear. In reality, it would be almost ineffective.
The reason is simple: high-power alternative engines are virtually non-existent on the market today, especially above 120 kW. In other words, the tax provides an incentive mechanism, but with no real industrial offer available to enable boaters to change technology.
The risk, according to FIN and CNP, is of producing a reform that is "green" in intention, but empty of effect in reality.
A tax paid by boaters... for an underfunded transition
Another angle put forward: the use of the tax proceeds. The TAEMUP is borne solely by pleasure boaters, and is supposed to contribute to the industry's environmental transition.
However, according to CNP and FIN, only a very small part of its yield (around 2%) currently funds the eco-organization in charge of dismantling end-of-life boats. This level of funding is widely considered insufficient to meet the challenges of the future, when the industry must structure the end-of-life of units, recycling channels and growing environmental obligations.
Against this backdrop, the reform is perceived as an increase or broadening of taxation, with no guarantee that it will be effectively earmarked for the transition.
What the industry is asking for in concrete terms
Behind the criticism, the position of the CNP and FIN is clear: the nautical sector is not opposed to a reform of the TAEMUP. But this reform must be prepared in advance, tested, legible and compatible with the industrial reality of motorization.
Failing this, the reform could have the opposite effect to that intended: slowing down access to boating, weakening the market for small craft and generating lasting misunderstanding, while remaining environmentally ineffective.
With one year to go, the question is now a political one: will the government agree to reopen the issue before 2027, or will it allow a reform to be implemented that the industry already deems unsuitable?
Entry into force in 2027... and a window of opportunity to correct the situation
The reform is due to come into force on January 1, 2027. For CNP and FIN, there is still time to avoid a sudden implementation and its negative effects on practice and the market.
The two organizations state that they alerted the Minister for the Sea as early as January 20, 2026, and are calling for a genuine consultation process, going beyond a simple consultation, in order to build a "consensual" reform that respects the initial objectives of simplification and transition.
At the same time, the Ministry has put an official simulator on line, enabling boaters to estimate the amount of the future tax based on the characteristics of their boat (length, engine power, motorization). The tool can be accessed at the following address:
? https://simulateur-taxe-plaisance.mer.gouv.fr/
A useful tool for concretely measuring the impact of âeuros reform and understanding why it is causing so much concern in the industry.
Deciphering the figures: who pays what... and why "threshold effects" are a cause for concern
Under the current system (inherited from the DAFN, integrated into the TAEMUP), the principle is simple: a "gateway" fee linked to length, to which is added, for the motorboats concerned, a fee linked to motorization (administrative power).
To give some "small tax" orders of magnitude, a UNAN memo (dated 06/12/2025) recalls in particular:
- 7 to 8 m: ?77
- 8 to 9 m: ?105
- 9 to 10 m: ?178
- 10 to 11 m: ?240
- 11 to 12 m: ?274
- 12 to 15 m: ?458
- 15 m and over: ?886
Above all, the same document reiterates the " motorization, below threshold
?? TAEMUP: 0 ? (typical exemption for units <7 m with little motorization).
2) 7.50 m sailboat, low-power engine
- Length: in the 7âeuros8 m range
?? The " rule that is most obvious to the general public: boats under 7 m in length and with less than 22 hp are exempt.Concrete examples âeuros Sailboats (often " alone is already 77 ? / year, even if the engine is small, because length triggers taxation.
3) 9.50 m sailboat
- Length: tranche 9âeuros10 m
?? Hull fee: ?178 / year (excluding any allowance for obsolescence in certain cases).
Concrete examples âeuros Motorboats (where tilting can be brutal)
Even if each case depends on the administrative power and the boat's file, this example illustrates exactly what the organizations are denouncing: a threshold crossing can make the boat go from ", but not always zero)
1) 6.90 m sailboat with small outboard (coastal use / tender)
- Length < 7 m
- Small" to "hull", with no link to actual use.
5) Vedette / open 7.20 m ("nothing" engine)
- Length: slice 7âeuros8 m â base "very expensive" 77 â¬
- Then add the engine according to its administrative power rating
?? This is typically the segment where federations fear increased tax pressure on first-time buyers and family yachting, as many units fall within the taxable range.
6) 10.50 m motorboat
- Length: 10âeuros11 m â hull base 240 â¬, plus engine part
?? On these sizes, the "reasonable" amount becomes significant, but the final bill depends very heavily on the motorization.
