Categorie: Nieuws

Among other things, the State Aid cases of Starbucks and Fiat were discussed.

For the whole presentation click here!

More information

For more information, please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan.

DAC 6 is to be transposed by each Member State into domestic laws by the end of 2019, and the first reporting is due on 31 August 2020 with the first quarterly exchange of information on 30 October 2020.

While DAC 6 proposes a uniform mandatory disclosure rule framework, it can be expected that national implementation will result in a non-uniform set of rules, which calls for an adequate coordination amongst involved intermediaries.

The purpose of our first DAC 6 Taxand newsletter is to give you an overview of where things stand (as at 22 November 2019) across the DAC 6 impacted European jurisdictions.

Discover more: DAC 6 implementation: where European jurisdictions stand

More information?

Please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan or Stephanie Kleefstra.

We would like to share our thoughts, based on our experience in advising multinational enterprises. Understanding the challenges to arrive at a consensus position prior to the end of 2020.

The following comments have been made considering the principles for the Unified Approach under Pillar One (“UA”), which is focused on the allocation of taxing rights.  The current work was established in the Programme of Work adopted through the Inclusive Framework and endorsed by the G20 and seeks to identify the commonalities among the three alternatives set out in the Programme of Work under Pillar One, which are:

• To reallocate taxing rights in favor of the user/market jurisdiction;
• To envisage a new nexus rule that would not depend on physical presence;
• Not to be based on the arm’s length principle and depart from the separate entity approach;
• To look for simplicity, stabilization and to increase tax certainty.

Discover more: Comments on the Public Consultation Document: Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar One published on 9 October 2019

For more information, please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan.

We would like to share our thoughts, based on our experience in advising multinational enterprises. Understanding the challenges to arrive at a consensus position prior to the end of 2020, Taxand applauds the efforts made in this Public Consultation Document and aims to provide constructive commentary in furtherance of the mission.

The following comments have been made considering the principles for the Unified Approach under Pillar One (“UA”), which is focused on the allocation of taxing rights.

Please click HERE to read the whole article and comments.

For more information, please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan.

De overgangsregeling geldt voor een periode van 1 jaar. Beide landen zullen hiertoe nationale wetgeving invoeren om te voorkomen dat personen die in een grensoverschrijdende situatie werkzaam zijn dubbele sociale zekerheidspremies moeten betalen ofwel niet verzekerd zijn, aangezien de EU regels voor sociale zekerheid niet langer van toepassing zullen zijn na een no-deal Brexit.

Het besluit voor het overgangsrecht van Nederland zal er voor zorgen dat de EU regels voor sociale zekerheid, zoals de EG Verordening 883/204, nog steeds van toepassing zijn alsof het Verenigd Koninkrijk niet zou zijn uitgetreden uit de EU.  Het Verenigd Koninkrijk zal ook nationale wetgeving met een vergelijkbare strekking invoeren. Beide landen zullen de overgangsregeling gedurende een periode van 1 jaar na de datum van de no-deal Brexit kunnen toepassen. De overgangsregelingen gelden zowel voor bestaande gevallen als voor nieuwe grensoverschrijdende situaties die na de datum van de no-deal Brexit zullen ontstaan.

For the whole article, check this link.

Also Martijn Jaegers, Indirect Tax partner of Taxand Netherlands was mentioned as “highly regarded 2020” practitioner.

ITR’s World Tax is a comprehensive guide to the world’s leading tax firms and most effective tax practitioners. Each edition rates the tax expertise offered in many jurisdictions, giving tax executives the most comprehensive information about the market for tax advice.Firms and professionals are ranked on the basis of three key criteria: work evidence, peer recommendations and client feedback. ITR’s research is entirely independent.

To read more on The World Tax 2020 Directory and rankings, please click here.

1. Introduction

On September 5, 2019 the Advocate-General Pitruzzella (“A-G”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued a conclusion in the German test case where a refund request for Dutch dividend withholding tax was filed by a German investment fund (Köln-Aktienfonds Deka). The conclusion is an important development as regards the comparability of foreign investment funds with Dutch fiscal investment institutions (“FII”)

On July 10, 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in the so-called SICAV-case that foreign investment funds that do not have the obligation to withhold Dutch dividend tax on distributions to their shareholders, are by definition not comparable with Dutch FII’s that do withhold Dutch dividend tax. This ruling received a significant amount of criticism, specifically arguing that a Dutch withholding tax obligation is not relevant for comparing a foreign investment fund to a Dutch FII.

Mid 2016 and following the criticism and a verdict by the ECJ in 2015, a Dutch lower court filed a request with the Dutch Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling regarding a German case, to provide more clarity on how to address the comparability of Dutch FII’s and foreign investment companies. The Dutch Supreme Court referred the German case to the ECJ. Below we will summarize the conclusion of the A-G of the ECJ.

2. Conclusion and Taxand’s take
The A-G concluded in short that the dividend withholding tax obligation should not be an element in determining whether a foreign fund is comparable with a Dutch FII and that the shareholders and distribution requirements as required under Dutch legislation may be contrary to the free movement of capital. Should the ECJ follow the A-G’s conclusion, this is a very positive development as this brings us a step closer to an eventual successful refund claim (assuming the ECJ to follow the AG’s conclusion). It is however key that the taxpayer can prove that the funds are taxed at the level of the participants within a reasonable period. Furthermore, in essence, the shareholders of the fund should be disclosed. For funds that cannot disclose their shareholders for various reasons we should await further guidance from the Dutch Supreme Court.

3. Background of the German case
The German fund is a contractual investment fund established in Germany, that is compliant with the requirements as set in the EU UCITS Directive. The German fund only held portfolio investments (smaller than 10%) in the Netherlands. The German Fund claimed the repayment of the withholding tax levied on dividends received from Dutch companies between 2002 and 2008, based on EU law. The fund argued that the different treatment (i.e. FII’s can obtain a refund whilst the Dutch dividend withholding tax is a final levy for foreign investment funds) is contrary to the free movement of capital and requested a refund of the tax levied.

In this regard, the Dutch Supreme Court referred three preliminary questions to the ECJ on how to address the comparability of foreign investment companies with FII’s. The first question relates to whether the Dutch withholding tax obligation is incompatible with EU law. The second question refers to the Dutch shareholder requirements and the third question relates to the re-distribution requirement.

4. The dividend withholding tax obligation
To date, one of the requirements for a refund of Dutch dividend withholding tax is whether a fund is obliged to withhold Dutch domestic withholding tax. Based on the ECJ ruling in the Danish Fidelity Funds case, we believe that Article 63 TFEU implies that a foreign fund cannot be refused a refund based on the fact that it does not withhold domestic (in that case Danish tax) on their distributions. Although the Dutch Supreme Court did not yet rule a verdict in this regard, the fact that it withdrew its first question after the Fidelity Funds case does support this view.

4.1. Arguments considered by the AG

The Dutch Supreme Court has withdrawn its question on the withholding obligation after the Fidelity Funds case. The A-G nevertheless does address this item in his conclusion and notes that the outcome of his analysis (i.e. that a fund is comparable) is not different due to the fact that a foreign investment fund does not withhold Dutch withholding tax.

5. Shareholders requirements
The second question refers to the Dutch shareholders requirements. The Dutch Supreme Court requested the ECJ to elaborate on whether – and if so, to what extent – the shareholders requirements are relevant for the comparability. In this respect, it was specifically addressed that some investment funds do not have insight in the identity of their shareholders and may therefore have issues with providing evidence that the shareholders requirements are met. The taxpayer invoked that due to privacy rules (EU directive on privacy regulations) it is also not allowed to provide evidence substantiating that the shareholder requirements are met.

The A-G mentions that member states are sovereign and thus allowed to determine the type of proof they require from taxpayers before they grant a tax facility (i.e. they can decide what evidence they require before a refund is granted). The A-G notes however that this does not mean that member states can ask for the impossible or almost impossible of foreign investments funds to meet such requirements.

The A-G does not accept the argument that due to privacy regulations a fund is not allowed to share information on its participants. The A-G notes that not sharing this information is at the risk of the taxpayer. He furthermore notes that in his opinion the EU directive on privacy does not prevent a fund from sharing information, as taxation falls in the scope of one of the exceptions. The A-G notes however that in case the burden of proof is a lot more difficult for foreign taxpayers, this can already be sufficient to be contrary to EU law.

The A-G concludes that the free movement of capital does allow the rejection of a refund in case the shareholders requirements are not met and/or the foreign fund is not able to demonstrate that it meets the shareholders requirements. However, this is only applicable in case this requirement is applied similarly in domestic situations. The A-G notes that the Dutch Supreme Court should investigate whether it is correct that the shareholders requirements are not reviewed at the level of Dutch FII’s. Should this be the case, this could be contrary to EU law.

Re-distribution requirement
The third preliminary question of the Dutch Supreme Court addresses the re-distribution requirement.

Under the Dutch regime, an FII is required to redistribute its entire income within eight months after the end of its financial year. There are two relevant components (i) there is a timing aspect (within eight months) and (ii) an income aspect (the entire income). Failing to meet this requirement will result in losing the benefits of the Dutch FII regime. This requirement has been put in place to avoid tax planning (i.e. using the FII as a tax deferral vehicle as it is taxed against a 0% rate).

In the German case, the German fund did not actually distribute the dividend (i.e. not within eight months). However based on German tax law, minimum distributions were deemed to be made to the shareholders. Shareholders in Germany are subject to tax based on these deemed distributions.

With this third preliminary question, the Dutch Supreme Court wishes to receive more clarity on the extent a foreign fund should meet the Dutch requirements. According to the A-G, it should be reviewed in the light of the purpose of the measure whether a foreign fund is comparable to a FII. Based on the purpose of the measure, the A-G concludes that the German fund is comparable to an FII. This also follows from the fact that the Netherlands levies Dutch dividend withholding tax from the German fund and foreign funds in general. The A-G states that in case it is very difficult or impossible to meet the Dutch requirements and in case the distributions are made within a reasonable period of time, the distributions are comparable to the Dutch distribution requirement. The A-G does not specify the term “reasonable period of time”. According to this conclusion. a ‘deemed distribution is also sufficient.

The A-G confirms that there is no justification for the Dutch discrimination. In his view, when the German fund has paid German (withholding) tax that is at least equal to the Dutch dividend withholding tax, the Netherlands should accept this.

For more information, please contact:

Gertjan Hesselberth
Partner
E. Gertjan.hesselberth@taxand.nl
T. +31 6 12744316

Stephanie Kleefstra
Associate
E. stephanie.kleefstra@taxand.nl
T. +31 6 13969403

Deze Tax Alert is als volgt ingedeeld:

• Aanpassing belasting op vermogensrendement (Box 3)
• Algemene maatregelen
• Maatregelen voor DGA’s
• Maatregelen voor de vastgoedsector
• Maatregelen voor werkgevers
• Maatregelen voor de vennootschapsbelasting
• Overige maatregelen

Aanpassing belasting op vermogensrendement (Box 3)

Kort vóór Prinsjesdag 2019 is middels een kamerbrief aangekondigd, welke maatregelen voor de belasting op vermogensrendement (Box 3) worden voorgesteld. Gevolg van dit voorstel is dat spaarders aanzienlijk minder belasting gaan betalen, terwijl beleggers slechter af zijn. De voorgestelde wijziging zou in moeten gaan op 1 januari 2022.

Wat gaat er veranderen?
Momenteel bevat de wet een fictie op basis waarvan vermogen (bezittingen minus schulden) in twee categorieën wordt verdeeld: spaargeld en beleggingen. Voor beide categorieën wordt een fictief rendement bepaald, waarover 30% belasting wordt geheven. Het fictieve rendement op beleggingen wordt hoger vastgesteld én bij een groter vermogen wordt men geacht meer te beleggen. Deze systematiek pakt met name nadelig uit bij belastingplichtigen die een aanzienlijk bedrag aan vermogen hebben, maar dit niet hebben belegd. Zij worden geacht een hoger rendement te halen dan zij in werkelijkheid doen.

De voorgestelde hervorming moet ervoor zorgen dat de ‘vermogensrendementheffing’ beter aansluit bij de werkelijkheid. De aanpassing maakt geen onderdeel uit van het Belastingplan 2020, maar is vanwege de aanzienlijke impact wel vermeldingswaardig.

In het nieuwe stelsel wordt op de peildatum (vooralsnog 1 januari van het belastingjaar) bepaald hoe het vermogen van een belastingplichtige daadwerkelijk is verdeeld. Daarbij wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen (a) spaargeld, (b) overige bezittingen en (c) schulden. Per categorie wordt jaarlijks een fictief rendementspercentage vastgesteld. Het uiteindelijk fictief rendement (a + b – c) wordt belast tegen 33% (huidige stelsel 30%).

De belastingplichtige met een vermogen van minder dan € 30.360 (voor partners € 60.720) valt buiten bovenstaande regeling en wordt dus niet belast. De belastingplichtige met een vermogen van € 30.360 (voor partners € 60.720) of meer valt met zijn/haar hele vermogen in bovenstaande regeling, maar is vrijgesteld voor de eerste € 400 (voor partners € 800) vastgesteld fictief rendement (heffingsvrij inkomen).

Welke gevolgen heeft de verandering?
Het nieuwe stelsel is voordelig voor spaarders, die door het heffingsvrij inkomen van € 400 en met een fictieve rendement op spaargeld van 0,09%, uitkomen op een belastingvrij vermogen van circa € 440.000 (partners € 880.000) Beleggers zijn echter slechter af. Beleggers hebben bijvoorbeeld door het vastgestelde fictieve rendement van 5,33%, op beleggingen een veel lager belastingvrij vermogen dan de € 440.000 voor spaarders. Met name als de beleggingen met veel vreemd vermogen zijn gefinancierd of als het rendement op de beleggingen lager is dan het fictieve rendement van 5,33%, kan het nieuwe stelsel tot een flink hogere belastingdruk leiden ten opzichte van het huidige stelsel. Beide fictieve rendementspercentages kunnen overigens op het moment van inwerkingtreding op 1 januari 2022 nog worden aangepast.

Door op een juiste manier en op tijd het vermogen anders te structureren, door bijvoorbeeld belegd vermogen over te dragen aan een BV dan wel een Fonds voor Gemene Rekening, kan afhankelijk van het daadwerkelijk rendement dit nadelige effect mogelijk worden beperkt (let bij overdracht van vastgoed op de overdrachtsbelasting).

Algemene maatregelen

Nieuwe tarieven voor de inkomstenbelasting
Inkomstenbelasting wordt op dit moment geheven op basis van vier inkomensschijven. Per 2021 zouden deze vier schijven teruggebracht worden tot twee schijven. Het kabinet stelt voor om deze invoering te versnellen en al per 1 januari 2020 over te stappen op het tweeschijvenstelsel, waarbij feitelijk de huidige eerste drie schijven worden samengevoegd. Gelijktijdig wordt het tarief van de hoogste schijf verlaagd naar 49,50% (momenteel 51,75%).

De nieuwe tarieven zijn als volgt:

Het kabinet houdt daarnaast vast aan de eerder aangekondigde afbouw van het tarief waartegen aftrekposten in aanmerking mogen worden genomen. In 2020 bedraagt dit tarief 46%.

Verhoging algemene heffingskorting en arbeidskorting
Voorgesteld wordt om de algemene heffingskorting in 2020 en 2021 te verhogen. Deze verhoging komt bovenop de verhoging die al eerder was aangekondigd. De maximale algemene heffingskorting (onder AOW-leeftijd) komt daarmee in 2020 uit op € 2.711 (2012: € 2.801).

Naast de verhoging van de algemene heffingskorting wordt ook voorgesteld om de arbeidskorting te verhogen. Deze gaat omhoog naar maximaal € 3.819 (2020) en € 4.143 (2021).

Verlaging zelfstandigenaftrek
Het belastingplan 2020 bevat een voorstel om de zelfstandigenaftrek met € 250 per jaar te verlagen tot maximaal € 5.000 in 2028 (momenteel: € 7.280). Door de verlaging bedraagt de maximale zelfstandigenaftrek € 7.030 in 2020.

Handhaving overgangsrecht saldolijfrenten en buitenlandse pensioenen
Het overgangsrecht voor bepaalde saldolijfrenten en voor bepaalde buitenlandse pensioenen (waarvoor het overgangsrecht nooit bedoeld was), wordt per 2021 onder bepaalde voorwaarden gehandhaafd. De afrekenverplichting wordt hiervoor afgeschaft. De beëindiging van het overgangsrecht en de afrekenverplichting wordt hierdoor beperkt tot specifiek die oude saldolijfrenten waarmee belastingheffing langdurig kan worden uitgesteld.

Aanpassing inkeerregeling
Ondanks dat boetevrije inkeer voor box 3 vermogen al eerder is afgeschaft, kon afgezonderd vermogen (bijvoorbeeld vermogen in een trust of APV) dat uiteindelijk bestond uit een aanmerkelijk belang toch in aanmerking komen voor boetevrije inkeer. Deze mogelijkheid wordt uitgesloten door ook box 2 vermogen (aanmerkelijk belang) uit te sluiten van boetevrije inkeer.

Daarnaast wordt voorgesteld om het momenteel geldende onderscheid tussen inkomen dat in het buitenland is opgekomen en inkomen dat in het binnenland is opgekomen te laten vervallen. Per 1 januari 2020 is derhalve ook de boetevrije inkeer voor inkomen uit aanmerkelijk belang, in het geval van ‘zwart sparen’ met een (buitenlandse) vennootschap uitgesloten.

Aftrekbeperking dwangsommen
Kosten en lasten die verband houden met bestuurlijke dwangsommen die zijn verbeurd na 31 december 2019 of strafbeschikkingen uitgevaardigd na 31 december 2019 zijn niet langer aftrekbaar van het resultaat van ondernemers of resultaatgenieters. Privaatrechtelijke dwangsommen blijven aftrekbaar.

Maatregelen voor DGA’s

Excessief lenen bij de eigen vennootschap
Op Prinsjesdag 2018 is reeds een maatregel aangekondigd om het lenen bij de eigen vennootschap te ontmoedigen. In maart 2019 is een conceptwetsvoorstel ter consultatie gepubliceerd. Kort gezegd, houdt het voorstel in dat een DGA die voor meer dan € 500.000 schuld heeft aan zijn vennootschap, over dat meerdere inkomstenbelasting dient te betalen. Het ‘excessieve’ deel wordt belast als ware dividend. Eigen woningschulden zijn onder voorwaarden uitgezonderd.

Het hierboven genoemde – ter consultatie gepubliceerde – wetsvoorstel bevat diverse onduidelijkheden en heeft veel reacties en kritiek opgeroepen. Wij hadden verwacht en gehoopt dat op Prinsjesdag 2019 een definitief wetsvoorstel voor deze regeling gepubliceerd zou worden, zodat DGA’s weten waar zij aan toe zijn. Helaas, is dit voorstel uitgebleven en is ook geen andere nieuwe informatie over dit voorstel bekend gemaakt. Op dit moment kunnen wij u daarom helaas niet nader informeren. Uiteraard houden wij de berichtgeving in de gaten en informeren wij u zodra meer informatie bekend is.

Tariefsverhoging Box 2
Al eerder is aangekondigd dat het belastingtarief in box 2 omhoog gaat van 25% (huidig) naar 26,25% (2020) en 26,9% (2021). Dit is geen onderdeel van het Belastingplan 2020, maar wel vermeldingswaardig, met name omdat de verhoging ook geldt voor reeds opgebouwde reserves. Het kan daardoor voordelig zijn om nog in 2019 vermogen uit de vennootschap te halen en zo te profiteren van het lage tarief. Daarbij dient uiteraard wel rekening te worden gehouden met de wijzigingen in box 3 (zie eerder). Wij adviseren u graag over de beste optie.

Maatregelen voor de vastgoedsector

Aanpassingen verhuurderheffing
Verhuurders (zowel corporaties als overige verhuurders) die meer dan 50 sociale huurwoningen bezitten, betalen een heffing over de WOZ-waarde van de huurwoningen, de zogenoemde verhuurdersheffing. Om de bouw van betaalbare huurwoningen te stimuleren wordt voorgesteld om twee maatregelen binnen de verhuurdersheffing in te voeren. De eerste maatregel is een structurele heffingsvermindering voor de nieuwbouw van betaalbare huurwoningen. De tweede maatregel is een vrijstelling voor tijdelijke huisvesting.

De structurele heffingsvermindering bedraagt € 25.000 per woning en geldt voor nieuwbouw van woningen met een huurprijs onder de huurgrens voor de huurtoeslag. De minimale investeringskosten dienen € 62.500 te zijn en de bouw van de woning dient gestart te zijn op of na 1 januari 2020. De vrijstelling voor tijdelijke huisvesting heeft betrekking op tijdelijke woningen die in de periode 2020 – 2024 wordt gerealiseerd. Van een tijdelijke woning is sprake als na een periode van maximaal vijftien jaar de bestaande toestand wordt hersteld.

Verhuurders kunnen aanspraak maken op beide maatregelen als zij woningen realiseren in de zogenoemde schaarstegebieden. De schaarstegebieden zijn de 10 COROP-gebieden met de hoogste gemiddelde WOZ-waarde en de vijf stedelijke regio’s waar het Rijk een woondeal mee heeft gesloten.

De verhuurdersheffing is gekoppeld aan de WOZ-waarde. Vanwege de stijging van de WOZ-waarde zal ondanks de heffingsvermindering de verhuurdersheffing in 2020 naar verwachting stijgen.

Verhoging overdrachtsbelastingtarief niet-woningen
Per 1 januari 2021 wordt de overdrachtsbelasting voor niet-woningen verhoogd met 1% van 6% naar 7%. Voor woningen blijft het verlaagde tarief van 2% van toepassing.

In de aanloop naar Prinsjesdag werd erop gerekend dat het Kabinet de overdrachtsbelasting ten aanzien van woningen voor starters zou schrappen. Daartegenover zou een verhoging van het tarief komen te staan voor vastgoedbeleggers met meer dan twee woningen. In de op Prinsjesdag gepresenteerde voorstellen zijn deze veranderingen nog niet opgenomen. In de Prinsjesdagstukken staat echter wel vermeld dat deze veranderingen ten aanzien van de overdrachtsbelasting nog onderzocht worden en dat er mogelijk hierover meer duidelijkheid komt in oktober van dit jaar. Uiteraard houden wij u hiervan op de hoogte.

Maatregelen voor werkgevers

Vergoeding dwangsommen en strafbeschikkingen zijn loon
Door een werkgever aan een werknemer betaalde vergoedingen voor dwangsommen of boetes, gaan voor de werknemer als loon gelden.

Verruiming vrije ruimte werkkostenregeling
De vrije ruimte in de werkkostenregeling wordt over – kort gezegd – de fiscale loonsom tot en met € 400.000 verhoogd van 1,2% naar 1,7%.

Waarde product uit eigen bedrijf
Om de bepaling van de waarde van het product uit het eigen bedrijf in lijn te brengen met de kortingsregeling, wordt voorgesteld om de waarde van de producten uit eigen bedrijf steeds te stellen op de waarde in het economische verkeer.

Maatregelen voor de vennootschapsbelasting

Uitstel verlaging Vpb-tarief
In eerdere berichtgeving was aangekondigd dat het Vpb-tarief in 2020 en 2021 zou dalen. De verlaging van het zogenoemde hoge tarief wordt uitgesteld naar 2021 en aangepast. De volgende Vpb-tarieven zijn voorgesteld:

Verhoging effectieve tarief innovatiebox
Het kabinet is voornemens om per 2021 het effectieve Vpb-tarief in de innovatiebox te verhogen van 7% naar 9%.

Aanpassing liquidatie- en stakingsverliesregeling
Momenteel kunnen verliezen die ontstaan door het staken van een bedrijfsactiviteit in het buitenland of het liquideren van een buitenlandse betreffende entiteit, onder voorwaarden worden afgetrokken van de belastbare winst in Nederland. De aftrek is niet in omvang beperkt en kan relatief eenvoudig worden doorgeschoven naar toekomstige jaren.

Voorgesteld wordt om de aftrek van dergelijke verliezen te maximeren en de uitstelmogelijkheden te beperken. Dit voorstel is nog niet verwerkt in een wetsvoorstel. Verdere details ontbreken daarom nog op dit moment.

Afschaffing betalingskorting
Wanneer de verschuldigde vennootschapsbelasting in één keer wordt voldaan, kan in bepaalde gevallen aanspraak worden gemaakt op een betalingskorting. Deze korting wordt per 1 januari 2021 afgeschaft.

Overige maatregelen

Spontane aangifte
De verplichting om aangifte te doen hangt in bepaalde gevallen samen met het krijgen tot een uitnodiging daartoe van de Belastingdienst. Zonder die uitnodiging, bestaat er momenteel in bepaalde gevallen formeel geen aangifteverplichting. Indien een belastingplichtige dan toch aangifte doet, wordt dit aangeduid als een ‘spontante aangifte’. Bij een spontane aangifte heeft de Belastingdienst beperktere correctie- en sanctiemogelijkheden, zo kan geen sprake zijn van omkering en verzwaring van de bewijslast, kan geen vergrijpboete worden opgelegd en kan geen navordering wegens kwade trouw plaatsvinden.

Het kabinet stelt daarom voor om de correctie- en sanctiemethoden die de Belastingdienst heeft los te koppelen van de uitnodiging tot het doen van aangifte. Dit onder andere omdat door de vooraf ingevulde aangifte spontane aangiftes steeds vaker voor komen. De spontane aangifte wordt daarmee ook vatbaar voor correctie- en sanctiemethoden die nu alleen kunnen worden opgelegd als eerst een uitnodiging tot het doen van aangifte is verzonden.

Aanpassing belastingrente vennootschapsbelasting
Op dit moment wordt geen rente in rekening gebracht als de (voorlopige) aangifte voor 1 mei van het jaar volgend op het belastingjaar is ingediend. Het kabinet heeft deze termijn met één maand opgeschoven naar 1 juni van het jaar volgend op het belastingjaar. Door het tijdig indienen van de (voorlopige) aangifte wordt het hoge 8% belastingrente voorkomen.

Mocht u meer willen weten over wat de bovenstaande maatregelingen voor uw fiscale positie betekenen en of er mogelijkheden zijn om bepaalde negatieve effecten te verminderen, kunt u uiteraard contact met ons opnemen.

Susan Raaijmakers, partner Real Estate, op 06-15886425 en Majid Ettafahi, partner Private Clients op 06-12744339.

Corporate income tax

Introduction conditional withholding tax interest and royalties

The Budget includes the previously announced legislative proposal to introduce a conditional withholding tax on interest and royalty payments as of 1 January 2021. The conditional withholding tax will only be due on interest or royalty payments to related entities in low-tax or EU blacklisted jurisdictions, or in cases of abuse.

In case interest or a royalty is paid to a jurisdiction which is not considered low-tax or EU blacklisted, anti-abuse rules may result in the conditional withholding tax to apply. This is the case if an additional recipient has been interposed, whereas the main purpose or one of the main purposes is to avoid the conditional withholding tax at the level of the ultimate recipient, while no genuine economic activities are performed by the recipient of the interest or royalty. Genuine economic activities in the Netherlands or in the low-tax or EU blacklisted jurisdiction do not prevent the conditional withholding tax in case the payment is made directly to the low-tax or EU blacklisted jurisdiction.

In relation to low-tax jurisdictions, with whom the Netherlands has concluded a tax treaty  (such as Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi-Arabia and the UAE), the conditional withholding tax will only become effective as from 2024. In the meantime, the Netherlands will start to renegotiate the respective tax treaties.

Please note that the interest or royalty payment may be considered non-deductible under e.g. Dutch anti-hybrid rules while also subject the conditional withholding tax.

Substance requirements are no longer a “safe harbor”

Following recent case law of the European Court of Justice (the “Danish case”), the list of substance requirements will no longer be considered a “safe harbor”. The substance requirements remain relevant, but their relevance shifts to a discussion regarding the burden of proof. If taxpayers meet the substance requirements, the burden of proof to demonstrate that a structure should nevertheless be qualified as abusive shifts to the Dutch Tax Authorities. If the substance requirements are not met, the taxpayer can still prove there are sound business motives. The foregoing is relevant for purposes of: (i) the aforementioned conditional withholding tax, (ii) the domestic dividend withholding tax exemption, (iii) CFC-legislation and (iv) the foreign substantial ownership regulations. The changes will apply as of 2020 for items (ii) to (iv) and are included in the proposal for the conditional withholding tax.

Corporate income tax rates

The decrease of the corporate income tax rate will be less than previously announced. Following the 2020 Budget, the highest corporate income tax rate will remain 25% in 2020 and will decrease to 21,7% in 2021. Profits up to EUR 200,000 will be taxed against 15% as of 2021.

Permanent establishment and permanent representative

A definition of permanent establishment and permanent representative will be added to the Dutch corporate income tax act in line with the OECD Model Convention (and commentary) and the Multilateral Instrument. Under the definitions, commissionaire structures will be considered a permanent representative. Please note that the Netherlands has made a full reservation to this clause in the Multilateral Instrument. The impact of adding the definitions should be (very) limited.

Increase tax rate under innovation box regime to 9%

The government has announced to increase the effective tax rate under the innovation box regime from 7% to 9%.

Changes to loss deduction for participations and permanent establishments

The government will propose new rules in relation to the loss deduction rules for participations and permanent establishments. This proposal is linked to the public discussion on the tax position of Dutch multinationals. The proposed changes will limit the possibilities to claim a loss at the level of the Dutch taxpayer in relation to a participation or permanent establishment.

 Personal income tax

Taxation of income derived from savings and investments

On 6 September 2019, the Dutch State Secretary of Finance presented a proposal to change the taxation of income from savings and investments (so-called: “box 3 income”). Box 3 income is based on a fictitious return on savings and investments. The current system is criticized as the fictitious return is considered to be unfair due to the low interest rates. Following a ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court, minor adjustments to the box 3 system were introduced in 2017 to reflect the lower actual returns.

The proposal of the Dutch Secretary of Finance entails a box 3 taxation system to better reflect the actual returns on savings and investments. The main differences as opposed to the current system are as follows. The first difference is the starting point for the calculation of the taxable income. Under the new system, the “capital mix” at the level of the taxpayer serves as a starting point. In this regard, the system distinguishes between three elements: (i) savings, (ii) other assets and (iii) debts, whereas each asset has its own fixed return. A second notable difference is that assets and debts are no longer balanced. Furthermore, if the taxable box 3 income exceeds the tax-free amount (currently EUR 30,360 (2019)), all income is in principle subject to tax (i.e. under the current rules only the surplus is taken into account).

The legislative proposal is expected to be presented to Dutch Parliament mid-2020. In short, the proposed changes are as follows:

• The taxable income is the deemed box 3 income (D) minus the tax-free income of EUR 400 per taxpayer.
• The deemed box 3 income (D) is calculated as A + B – C, where

1. = savings: 0.09% fixed return
2. = other assets (e.g. investments, shares and real estate): 5.33% fixed return
3. = debt: 3.03% fixed return

• The tax rate is increased from 30% to 33%.

Real estate transfer tax

It is intended to increase the real estate transfer tax rate for commercial real estate from 6% to 7% in 2021.

 VAT

For the relevant changes for VAT, please follow this link.

More information?

For more information, please contact:

Jimmie van der Zwaan, Partner Transfer Pricing

Gerriët Nagelhout, Senior Associate

Maud Kallen, Associate

Martijn Jaegers, Partner Indirect Tax

This package of proposals is aimed at fixing some practical problems that the market experiences with the current VAT rules. At the same time, it is considered of high relevance for businesses who will benefit from the harmonised rules. It should be understood also that benefits always come with downsides and, common within VAT, compliance requirements.

The four ‘quick fixes’ initially presented by the Commission:

1.  call-off stock. The proposals provide for a simplified and uniform treatment for call-off stock arrangements, where a vendor transfers stock to a warehouse at the disposal of a known acquirer in another Member State;
2. the VAT identification number. To benefit from a VAT exemption for the intra-EU supply of goods, the identification number of the customer will become a material condition;
3. chain transactions. To enhance legal certainty in determining the VAT treatment of chain transactions, new uniform criteria are established;
4.  proof of intra-EU supply. A common framework will apply for the documentary evidence required to claim a VAT exemption for intra-EU supplies.

These adjustments will apply from January 1, 2020. Further information is provided below.

1. Call-off Stock

By “call-off stock” we refer to situations in which a supplier transports goods to another Member State for their supply at a later stage. At the moment the transport takes place, the supplier already knows the identity of the person that will be acquiring the goods. Transfer of title however takes place after delivery abroad (for example, when the customer “calls” the goods for its production proces). This currently gives rise to the supplier carrying out a deemed supply in the Member State of departure of the goods and a deemed intra-Community acquisition in the Member State of arrival of the goods, followed by a ‘domestic’ supply in the Member State of arrival when transfer of title occurs. This requires the supplier to be identified for VAT purposes in that Member State. Over the years, various Member States have introduced simplifications to prevent foreign VAT registrations in this regard but the conditions for use of the simplification (e.g. time limits) were not aligned and therefore difficult to implement and manage regionwide. Aiming to ease compliance for businesses, it has been considered necessary to harmonize the applicable rules to this type of supplies as follows:

a. Conditions for call-off stock arrangements under the new rules
It is not relevant whether the words call-off, consignment or other name is given to the stock transfer agreement, nor if the taxable person dispatching or transporting the goods is already registered for VAT purposes in the country of arrival of the goods. The call-off stock arrangement applies per January 1, 2020 when the following conditions are met:

• goods are dispatched or transported by a taxable person, or by a third party on his behalf, to another Member State with a view to those goods being supplied there, at a later stage and after arrival, to another taxable person who is entitled to take ownership of those goods following an existing agreement between both parties;
• the taxable person dispatching or transporting the goods has not established his business nor has a fixed establishment in the Member State to which the goods are dispatched or transported;
• the taxable person to whom the goods are intended to be supplied is identified for VAT purposes in the Member State to which the goods are dispatched or transported and both his identity and the VAT identification number assigned to him by that Member State are known to the taxable person dispatching or transporting the goods, at the time when the dispatch or transport begins;
• the taxable person dispatching or transporting the goods records the transfer of the goods in a register and includes the identity of the taxable person acquiring the goods and the VAT identification number assigned to him by the Member State to which the goods are dispatched or transported in a qualifying recapitulative statement.

b. Applicable rules
In the above cases, an intra-Community supply of goods shall be deemed to be made by the taxable person that dispatched or transported the goods. This intra-Community supply is followed by an intra-Community acquisition of goods by the taxable person to whom those goods are supplied in the Member State to which the goods were dispatched or transported. Both taxable events take place at the moment of transfer of title to the goods, provided that such transfer of title occurs within 12 months after the arrival of the goods in the Member State to which they were dispatched or transported.

If the 12-month time limit is exceeded, a transfer of own goods within the meaning of Article 17 of the Directive will be deemed to take place on the day following the expiry of the 12-month period. This transfer of own goods will also be deemed to occur:

• in case any of the conditions for the call off stock arrangements ceases to be met (and at that very same moment); or
• if the goods are sent to another Member State, in which case the transfer of own goods is deemed to occur immediately after the transport to the “new” Member State takes place; or
• in the event of the destruction, loss or theft of the goods, in which case, the transfer of own goods will be deemed to occur on the date that the goods were actually removed or destroyed.

If it is impossible to determine that date, the date on which the goods were found to be destroyed or missing.
However, the right to apply the simplification is not lost in case the goods are dispatched back to the Member State of origin (before the mentioned 12-month period) and such return of goods is posted in the applicable register. In case the original acquirer of the goods is substituted by another taxable person, no transfer of goods shall be deemed to take place at the time of the substitution either, provided that all other applicable conditions are met and the substitution is recorded by the supplier in the applicable register.

c. Current simplification
The Netherlands already applies a long-standing simplification for goods entering the Netherlands upon call-off or consignment agreements (“Announcement 15, VB93/3672”). The State Secretary of Finance has mentioned in Parliament that existing simplifications will be amended in line with the new regime.

2. The VAT-id number / availability and Recapitulative Statement

Under the new provisions, the VAT-id becomes a material requirement for the VAT exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods. This is a change in comparison to the CJEU judgments (e.g. Plöckl, C-24/15) which stipulated that an intra-Community supply may be VAT exempt even if the supplier did not know the purchasers’ VAT-id when the supply took place.

This new EU provision will cause problems when the purchaser has applied for a VAT-id but does not receive it on time. According to the new rules, a VAT exemption is not applicable as their material requirements are not met. Moreover, the recapitulative statement (i.e. the European Sales Listing) is now regarded as prerequisite for the VAT exemption. That means that the Tax Authorities will deny the VAT exemption for intra-Community supplies of goods if the recapitulative statement is wrong, incomplete or not submitted. This is a crucial change in comparison to the current standing of the recapitulative statement for the intra-Community supply of goods. Until now the VAT exemption for the intra-Community supply of goods did not depend on the correct submission of the recapitulative statement.

We note there is a time span between the moment the supply is made and invoiced to the acquirer and the moment when the supplier has to comply with the obligation of submitting a recapitulative statement. Thus, the question arises if the supplier may VAT exempt the supply at the time the supply is made without having received (and verified in VIES) the VAT-id number at that time. It seems to us this should be acceptable though at the suppliers’ risk should his customer not timely provide him with the required VAT-id number. We expect more guidance will be issued in this regard.

Following the adaptions, the VAT zero rate can only be applied when, simply said, the following conditions are met:
(a) the goods are supplied to another taxable person acting as such in a Member State other than in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins;
(b) the taxable person making the supply is identified for VAT purposes in another Member State than where the dispatch or transport of the goods ends;
(c) the taxable person to which the supply is made has indicated this VAT-id number to the supplier, and
(d) a correct European Sales Listing (recapitulative statement) has been submitted. A correct Sales Listing means that the VAT-id’s numbers reported are verifiable in the VIES system.

We stress that the VAT zero rate shall not apply when the supplier has not complied with the administrative obligations to submit a recapitulative statement or when the submitted recapitulative statement does not set out the correct information concerning this supply. This unless the supplier can duly justify his shortcoming to the satisfaction of the Dutch tax authorities. This can be done, for example, within a period determined by the inspector to provide the correct VAT identification number of his buyer. According to the State Secretary, that possibility of rectification remains. We are pleased to provide further detail on the quality requirements of the recapitulative statement upon your request.

3. Chain Transactions

a. Background for amending VAT Directive
The European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) has ruled on chain transactions in various cases, for example in the cases EMAG Handel Eder (C-245/04), Euro Tyre Holding (C-430/09), VSTR (C-587/10), Toridas (C-386/16), Kreuzmayr GmbH (C-628/16), Hans Bühler KG (C-580/16) and AREX CZ a.s. (C-414/17).

According to these decisions chain transactions refer to successive supplies of goods which are subject to one single intra-Community transport movement. The intra-Community movement of the goods can therefore only be ascribed to one of the supplies (being the moved supply), and only that supply should benefit from the VAT zero rate applicable for intra-Community supplies. The other supplies in the chain should be taxed as local supplies and could require a VAT registration of the supplier in the Member State of supply. However, as there are no further rules (neither in the VAT directive nor in the implementing regulation) on how to apply the interpretation of the CJEU in a uniform manner, a common rule should be established conditioning how to attribute transport of the goods to a single supply within the chain. Only then can different application amongst Member States be avoided, can risk of double taxation or non-taxation be minimized and is legal certainty for operators enhanced.

b. The VAT directive text and, in line with this, the Dutch VAT act will be updated striving to come to a uniform approach of transport attribution.
For the purposes of this arrangement, the term ‘intermediary operator’ is introduced. This means a supplier within the chain other than the first supplier in the chain who dispatches or transports the goods either himself or through a third party acting on his behalf. Knowing this, transportation shall be attributed as follows:

1. Where the same goods are supplied successively, and those goods are dispatched or transported from one Member State to another Member State directly from the first supplier to the last customer in the chain, the dispatch or transport shall be ascribed only to the supply made to the intermediary operator.
2. By way of derogation from what is mentioned under 1, the dispatch or transport shall be ascribed only to the supply of goods by the intermediary operator where the intermediary operator has communicated to his supplier the VAT-id number issued to him by the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported.

4. Proof of intra-Community supply of goods

Even after many years of practice, the standard of proof of intra-Community supplies still leads to discussions. Question generally is whether the taxable person applying the VAT zero-rate for Intra-Community supplies can sufficiently substantiate the correct use of the VAT zero rate. If such proof cannot be provided, the taxable person risks additional VAT assessments. The standing practice will be continued but in addition, new rules are introduced to aid the taxable person (safe-harbor).

Following the new regime, the vendor applying the VAT zero-rate will need to be in possession of at least two items of non-contradictory evidence which were issued by two different parties that are independent of each other, of the vendor and of the acquirer. In practice, we consider this provision will cause problems. It is at least questionable if the supplier can provide two different documents which meet the demands of the Implementing Regulation. Nevertheless, the Regulation unfolds direct effect towards the entrepreneurs. In this regard, it is debated how the term ‘independent’ is to be interpreted and how close the relationship between the entities may be.

The question also arises about the relationship between the provisions in the Implementing Regulation and any national provisions about the proof of transport.
a. Concerning the proof of Intra-Community supply, the Implementing Regulation is worded as follows:

1. For the purpose of applying the exemptions laid down in the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC, it shall be presumed that goods have been dispatched or transported from a Member State to a destination outside its territory but within the EU in either of the following cases:
   • the vendor indicates that the goods have been dispatched or transported by him or by a 3rd party on his behalf, and either the vendor is in possession of at least two items of non-contradictory evidence, referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 below, which were issued by two different parties that are independent of each other, of the vendor and of the acquirer, or the vendor is in possession of any single item referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 together with any single item of non-contradictory evidence referred to in point (b) of paragraph 3 confirming the dispatch or transport which were issued by two different parties that are independent of each other, of the vendor and of the acquirer;
   • the vendor is in possession of the following:
   1. a written statement from the acquirer, stating that the goods have been dispatched or transported by the acquirer, or by a third party on behalf of the acquirer, and identifying the Member State of destination of the goods; that written statement shall state: the date of issue; the name and address of the acquirer; the quantity and nature of the goods; the date and place of the arrival of the goods; in the case of the supply of means of transport (e.g. vehicles), the identification number of the means of transport; and the identification of the individual accepting the goods on behalf of the acquirer. The acquirer shall furnish the vendor with the written statement by the tenth day of the month following the supply (note: we imagine this deadline might be difficult to meet in practice); and
   2. at least two items of non-contradictory evidence referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 below that were issued by two different parties that are independent of each other, of the vendor and of the acquirer, or any single item referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 together with any single item of noncontradictory evidence referred to in point (b) of paragraph 3 confirming the dispatch or transport which were issued by two different parties that are independent of each other, of the vendor and of the acquirer.
2.  The tax authorities may rebut a presumption that has been made under paragraph 1.
3.  For the purposes of paragraph 1 above, the following shall be accepted as evidence of dispatch or transport:
   (a) documents relating to the dispatch or transport of the goods, such as a signed CMR document or note, a bill of lading, an airfreight invoice or an invoice from the carrier of the goods;
   (b) the following documents:
   • an insurance policy with regard to the dispatch or transport of the goods, or bank documents proving payment for the dispatch or transport of the goods;
   • official documents issued by a public authority, such as a notary, confirming the arrival of the goods in the Member State of destination;
   • a receipt issued by a warehouse keeper in the Member State of destination, confirming the storage of the goods in that Member State.