Tax Updates

Fiscal partners are allowed to freely allocate their Box 3 assets between them in the tax return. This can be advantageous: if one partner has more tax-free allowance remaining, redistributing the tax base can reduce the combined tax bill.

With assessments reduced through the mass objection procedure, it was unclear whether this reallocation option still applied. The assessment had already been issued. Could it still be adjusted?

The Supreme Court answered yes. Fiscal partners who received a reduction through the mass objection procedure have 6 weeks after the reduction notice to adjust their mutual Box 3 allocation. The ruling is ECLI:NL:HR:2026:495.

In practice: if you and your partner received a joint refund through the mass objection, you can check whether a different allocation would be even more favourable. That option exists, but only within those six weeks of the notice.

Have you already received a reduction notice? Check the date. If it was issued less than 6 weeks ago, you can request a revised allocation from the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration. If in doubt, contact a tax adviser or use the Tax Administration's objection portal.

Shortly before the final vote on the Wet Werkelijk Rendement, MP Vlottes (VVD) tabled a motion with a direct demand: remove the annual tax on unrealised capital gains from the bill. Anyone holding shares that rise in value but does not sell should not face a tax bill for gains they have not yet received.

The Lower House rejected the motion. A majority was not prepared to scrap the mark-to-market wealth tax before the law had even been adopted.

Two days later, on 12 February 2026, the same House approved the bill as it stood, including the annual tax on paper gains.

The underlying objection to the mark-to-market tax has merit. Crypto investors, growth equity holders, and startup employees with stock options can face a tax assessment for gains they cannot pay without selling. Prince Constantijn of Orange made the point on behalf of the tech sector: you have not received a single euro, but the Tax Authority is already at the door.

Yet the majority rejected the motion, for three connected reasons.

The political debate over the Wet Werkelijk Rendement has for months focused on one central question: is it fair to tax gains that have not yet been realised? Under the mark-to-market wealth tax, rising share prices are taxed annually, even if you have not received a penny.

In response to this criticism, the cabinet has committed to investigating whether the mark-to-market system could be replaced by a capital gains tax for more asset categories. A capital gains tax applies only upon sale, eliminating the liquidity problems that arise with unrealised gains.

The current law already combines two systems: real estate and start-up stakes fall under the capital gains tax (taxed at sale), while listed shares, bonds, and savings fall under the mark-to-market system. The cabinet is now exploring whether that second category can be broadened.

Nothing concrete has been decided. This is a political commitment to investigate, not a legislative change or a formal proposal. The outcome is unknown, and so is the timeline. Only when Heinen or Eerenberg publishes a revised bill will there be something tangible to respond to.

In the meantime, the current law remains in force: mark-to-market taxation for listed investments, effective 1 January 2028.

The Opgaaf Werkelijk Rendement (OWR) sounds appealing: if you earned less than the notional rates, you can report your actual return and reduce your tax bill. But the reality is more nuanced.

The core issue: the OWR calculation does not apply the tax-free threshold. Actual return is calculated on your total Box 3 assets, whereas the notional system first deducts the exemption (€57,684 for single filers, €115,368 for tax partners) before applying the rates.

Say you have €100,000 in investments and earn a 4% return (€4,000) in 2025. That is well below the notional rate of 5.88%. Yet the notional system can still produce a lower tax bill.

Notional (forfait):

On 17 and 18 March 2026, the Senate Finance Committee held the previously announced oral consultations with State Secretary Eerenberg on the Wet Werkelijk Rendement. Eerenberg acknowledged the legislative process had been "not optimal" but continued with the regular parliamentary procedure.

The most concrete outcome: the cabinet will actively investigate whether a carry-back provision is feasible. This would allow taxpayers to offset a Box 3 loss against tax paid in previous years , effectively claiming a refund for past years when the new system produces a loss.

In practice: someone who incurs a Box 3 loss in 2028 or later could carry that loss back to a prior year and recover tax previously paid. This is a significant change from the original bill, which only allowed losses to be carried forward against future tax liability.

If funding can be found, the cabinet intends to include the carry-back in a novelle (amendment bill) to Tax Plan 2027. This is a supplementary proposal that modifies the main law before it takes effect.

Eerenberg also announced that a separate bill is being prepared for start-up entrepreneurs. This group has specific concerns about the new system , particularly the taxation of unrealised gains in a young business that has not yet generated liquidity. The separate bill is intended to take effect on 1 January 2028, alongside the main law.

From 1 March 2026, the 2025 income tax return is open for filing. The standard deadline is 1 May 2026, unless you request an extension.

Box 3 still uses the notional return system for 2025. The definitive rates are:

Many people read Minister Heinen's announcement last week as meaning the annual tax on unrealised gains would be dropped. That is not correct.

Heinen's only concrete proposal was loss carry-back, which the Lower House had already called for in a motion. The vermogensaanwasbelasting itself, the annual tax on unrealised gains due to take effect in 2028, he is leaving untouched for now. State Secretary Eerenberg made this explicit after the cabinet meeting on Friday: "We are working from the current bill. It has not been withdrawn."

The reason is straightforward. Dropping the annual gains tax would cost the treasury €2.4 billion a year. There is no plan to fill that gap.

The FD's reconstruction makes clear that Heinen's remarks were not coordinated with coalition partners. D66 and CDA were caught off guard. Prime Minister Jetten said the minister had "walked into a camera."

Tax experts reacted sharply. Professor Ruud van den Dool (Nyenrode) called it "bizarre" and said Heinen had forgotten "the budgetary consequences and proper procedures." Fellow professor Edwin Heithuis (University of Amsterdam) called it "beyond comprehension." Both stressed that all arguments for and against had been thoroughly debated before the Lower House voted in favour.

On 26 February 2026, the Lower House passed a motion filed by ChristenUnie and JA21, with support from the VVD among others. The motion calls on the government to include loss carry-back provisions in the revised Box 3 bill that Minister Heinen is preparing.

This is a concrete new requirement on top of the revision already announced. Heinen had already indicated that the bill would be revised following resistance in the Senate, but the details remain unknown. The motion makes clear what the Lower House expects to see in the revised proposal.

Under the Wet Werkelijk Rendement, you pay tax on your actual return. In a good year you pay tax on gains. But what happens in a bad year when your portfolio falls?

Without loss carry-back, you pay tax in good years but receive nothing back in bad years. Over time, that can amount to a tax on your average return, but in an asymmetric way: the government shares in gains, but not in losses.

Carry-back means that a loss in year X can be offset against tax paid in year X-1. You would then receive a refund of part of the tax already paid. This is a fairer system, and the standard approach in countries that already have a capital gains tax.

Minister Heinen is going to revise the Box 3 bill. What exactly will change is not yet known, but it is clear where the main friction lies: the wealth accretion tax (vermogensaanwasbelasting).

That term refers to a system in which you pay tax on the increase in value of your investments, even if you have not sold them. The gain exists on paper, but the money is still locked in shares, crypto, or a company. Yet the Tax Authority wants to levy tax on it immediately.

That is exactly what has triggered broad resistance, from investors and crypto holders to startup employees who receive shares as part of their compensation. Prince Constantijn of Orange put it plainly on behalf of the tech sector: if you own shares in a startup that have risen in value, you have not received a single euro, but you would already face a tax bill.

Source: Taxence, based on NOS 25 February 2026

The difference between the two alternatives is exactly as large as it sounds.

Minister Eelco Heinen of Finance announced on 25 February 2026 that he will revise the Box 3 bill. He is going back to the drawing board. The Financieele Dagblad reported this on Wednesday morning.

The trigger was twofold: a wave of investor protests and critical remarks from the Senate at the start of its review process. The combination appears to have convinced Heinen that the current bill is politically unsustainable in the Senate.

Heinen warns that reform of the tax on investment returns remains necessary, and that no additional budget is available for changes that would reduce revenue.

Source: Financieele Dagblad, 25 February 2026

The bill as passed by the Lower House on 12 February 2026 is no longer the end point. A revised version is coming. That version must go back through the legislative process, which means:

The Finance Committee (FIN) of the Eerste Kamer (Senate) met on 24 February 2026 to discuss the procedure for reviewing bill 36.748. The outcome was a concrete first step: the Ministry of Finance has been asked to hold a technical briefing on 17 March 2026.

Source: eerstekamer.nl

A technical briefing is a presentation by civil servants explaining the content of the bill. It is not a political debate, but an opportunity for senators to ask questions about how the law works in practice, including questions on enforceability, transitional rules, and the technical details of the wealth accretion tax.

After the briefing, the written preparation phase begins. Parliamentary groups submit written questions to the State Secretary, who responds via a Memorandum of Reply. This typically takes several weeks to a month.

After that comes the plenary debate in the Senate, and finally the vote. Based on the current timeline, the vote is expected in spring 2026. Media outlets including the Financieele Dagblad mention May as a possible target month, but this has not been officially confirmed.

Today, 24 February 2026, the Finance Committee (FIN) of the Eerste Kamer (Senate) discusses the procedure for reviewing bill 36.748, the Wet Werkelijk Rendement Box 3. This is the first formal step now that the bill has been referred from the Lower House.

Source: eerstekamer.nl

In the Senate, the review of any bill always starts with agreeing on the procedure. The committee decides how and when it wants to examine the bill: when is the deadline for written questions, does the committee want a hearing with external experts, and how long does the cabinet have to respond?

Only then do the substantive steps follow:

1. Written preparation: senators submit questions, the State Secretary responds via a Memorie van Antwoord (memorandum of reply)

Most countries tax capital gains only when an asset is sold, using the realisation basis. From 2028, the Netherlands takes the opposite approach for shares and investment funds: an annual levy on unrealised appreciation. That difference in timing creates a new problem for anyone holding foreign assets.

Say you own shares in an American company. The US taxes the gain only when you sell. The Netherlands taxes that same gain every year. There is no moment at which both countries are taxing the same income, because they use fundamentally different definitions of when a gain becomes taxable. The result can be double taxation on the same wealth, with no tax treaty offering a way out.

This was flagged by tax adviser Rutger van Esch (BDO Tax & Legal) in the February issue of Vakblad Estate Planning. His conclusion: the Netherlands is once again becoming an 'odd one out' internationally.

Many countries levy withholding tax on dividends paid to Dutch residents. Under the current system, you can credit that tax against your box 3 liability, but those rules change in 2028.

The cabinet wants to introduce a so-called 'second limit' for crediting foreign withholding taxes. This means the offset rules will be extended with a carry-forward mechanism, letting you roll over withholding tax you cannot credit in one year into subsequent years. The 'joint method', whereby income from multiple countries is combined to calculate the offset limit, also becomes relevant for box 3.

On 12 February 2026, a broad majority of the Dutch Lower House approved the Wet Werkelijk Rendement Box 3. This represents a significant step towards a fundamental overhaul of the wealth tax.

But the law is not yet final. Under the Dutch legislative process, the Eerste Kamer (Senate) must also give its approval. Until that happens, the law can still be rejected, amended, or postponed.

The Eerste Kamer (Senate) reviews legislation primarily for quality, enforceability, and constitutionality - not for political desirability. It is customary for the Senate to ask probing questions, especially on complex tax legislation.

In reviewing this bill, attention is expected to focus on:

On social media and at family dinners, you sometimes hear it stated as fact: the government has decided not to tax unrealised capital gains after all. "They're switching to a capital gains tax," people say. "Shares will only be taxed when you sell them."

That is incorrect. And this misunderstanding can lead to costly financial mistakes.

Below, we set out precisely what has been passed into law, what remains a political ambition, and why that ambition is far from certain.

---

Two key terms are at the heart of this debate.

The Dutch Tax Authority (Belastingdienst) has published the definitive fictitious return percentages for tax year 2025 in box 3. These rates apply under the current interim system, which remains in place until the Wet Werkelijk Rendement takes effect on 1 January 2028.

Confirmed rates for 2025:

On 12 February 2026, a broad majority of the Dutch Lower House (Tweede Kamer) approved the Wet Werkelijk Rendement Box 3. This means that the current interim system - based on fictitious returns per asset category - will be replaced from 1 January 2028 by a system that taxes actual returns.

The new law introduces the following fundamental changes:

Following the Lower House approval on 12 February 2026, it has been confirmed that the Wet Werkelijk Rendement Box 3 will take effect on 1 January 2028, one year later than the originally planned date of 1 January 2027.

The delay gives taxpayers, implementing organisations, and financial institutions more time to prepare for the new system.

Importantly, the law has not yet been formally enacted. The Eerste Kamer (Senate) still needs to consider and approve the bill. Only after Senate approval will the law be formally adopted.

The Senate can:

In December 2021, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) made a landmark ruling: the Box 3 system violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The system taxed taxpayers on the basis of a high fictitious return, while savers in reality earned far less due to low interest rates.

This led to a mass objection procedure and ultimately to legal redress for the years 2017–2022.

On 6 June 2024, the Supreme Court provided further clarity on the scope of legal redress. The central question was: does every taxpayer have the right to individual assessment, or only those who had filed a timely objection?

The Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers who can demonstrate that their actual return was lower than the fictitious return have a right to reassessment, even if the regular objection period had already expired.

This is a significant expansion of the group of taxpayers entitled to compensation.