Facts
The dispute concerns the question of whether the income the applicant derives from the rental of ten apartments, five of which are furnished and five unfurnished, should be qualified in whole or in part as income from an independent gainful activity. The Compensation Fund considered that the rental income, both from the furnished and unfurnished apartments, constituted income from an independent gainful activity. The applicant contested this qualification, arguing that this income should be considered as income from capital, as his management of the property did not exceed the framework of simple private asset management.Considerations
The case law of the Federal Insurance Court has established that the income from the rental of unfurnished apartments in a building owned by an insured person constitutes income from capital that is exempt from contributions, insofar as this activity is limited to the collection of rents and does not have a commercial character. In contrast, the operation of a rented furnished property may be qualified as an independent gainful activity, particularly when the owner provides services to the tenants (maintenance, cleaning, etc.) or when the management of the property involves a high economic risk.
In the present case, the Federal Insurance Court considers that the income from the rental of the unfurnished apartments is not subject to the obligation to pay contributions. As for the income from the rental of the furnished apartments, the Compensation Fund will have to examine whether the applicant's allegations, according to which he does not provide services to the tenants and that his supervision of the rented properties does not exceed the usual framework of the rental of unfurnished…