Will a foundation have to file its annual accounts in the future?

On September 11, only a week before this year’s Prinsjesdag, the Dutch Lower House adopted two parliamentary motions. Along with consenting to an investigation into trust sector domiciliation, the Lower House has also agreed to examine if foundations will have to file annual accounts from now on.


For legal and fiscal purposes, a foundation is considered to be a legal form which is not intended to make a profit, but to pursue other goals instead. If a foundation does make a profit, this must merely be as a result of the pursuit of the goals of the foundation, and not purposely benefitting the governors or founders of the foundation financially. Moreover, this motion only concerns foundations, not associations which, unlike foundations, have members.

Annual accounts of a foundation

Up to now, a foundation was not usually compelled to draw up annual accounts. The reason for this was simple: profit and loss accounts or balance sheets appeared insignificant for a non-profit organization. The book-keeping of a foundation generally does not focus on sales figures, purchase or sale invoices, or indeed tax submissions. Instead of this, the book-keeping primarily exists to account for monies received or spent in order to realize the goals of the foundation.

Obligation to file a foundation’s annual accounts

By compelling a legal form to file annual accounts, the Dutch Tax Authorities can check to what extent this legal form makes a profit or loss. Annual accounts are thus also interesting with regards to a foundation. When the foundation is pursuing a profit, or makes one in the course of trade, it is running a company after all. Consequently, the foundation is obliged to declare corporate tax. Additionally, a foundation that realizes a turnover on a regular basis meets the requirements of the legal form enterprise. Hence, the foundation is obliged to pay VAT.

Examination of the annual accounts will confirm if this is the case. Failing to file annual accounts can, therefore, be seen by the Lower House as a tax avoidance construction.

This is why the Lower House has approved the motion to research –within the next 8 months- the revision of the obligation on foundation to file annual accounts (Kamerstukken II, 34 566, nr.10). Along with this, the Lower House will have to submit a threshold to determine whether a foundation makes turnover instead of the allowed profit.
At the moment, various foundations and associations are already obliged to file annual accounts. This obligation to file applies when they are engaged in an enterprise which, in two successive financial years, makes a turnover of at least 6 million EUR per financial year (ANBI’s are only obliged to publish their annual accounts, not to file them). Similarly, organizations in certain sectors, such as pension funds, broadcasters, and housing cooperatives must file annual accounts.


If you wish to get more information on foundations, or the taxes that are connected to them, do not hesitate toget in touch with us.

Which City will be the Capital of Blockchain Technology

Leaving Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley has long been the de facto location for budding startups to set their roots and grow into multimillion-dollar businesses, but it may not be the capital of blockchain technology. As of July 2017, 62 out of the 105 total U.S. companies, valued at over $1biljion, are located in California. To put that into perspective, New York has the second highest amount with only 15 businesses.

However, with the power of decentralization, blockchain-based startups are proving that you can find success outside of the Silicon Valley bubble. Cities around the world, whether it be through looser regulations, strong financial ties, or some unknown factors, have started vying for the title of “capital of blockchain” and are emerging as meccas for young cryptocurrency companies. Although a forerunner hasn’t emerged yet, there are a few regions beginning to develop as hot spots for this new innovation.

Chicago, USA

Flying under the radar, Chicago is quickly building itself to be a world leader in cryptocurrency. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) were two of the first U.S. financial exchanges to support Bitcoin futures trading.

Lesser known, the Illinois government was one of the first to embrace blockchain technology by forming the Illinois Blockchain Initiative (IBI). The IBI is a dedicated approach to:

  • Create non-onerous legislation surrounding the technology,
  • Perform blockchain pilot programs within government organizations, and
  • Develop the blockchain ecosystem in Chicago.

The Chicago Blockchain Center (CBC) is spearheading objective number three. The CBC hosts developer workshops and meetups as well as supports local startups through incubation. All of this combined has led to the growth of a large blockchain community in the Windy City.

In fact, Chicago is a leader in venture-backed blockchain startups. Chicago companies have raised over $69 million to date – more than three times the amount of Austin, Denver, and Seattle combined.

 Notable Companies/Projects: Bloq, CFX Markets


Austin, USA

Fielding refugees from San Francisco’s inflated housing market, Austin is carving a niche for itself with blockchain startups. Having no income tax and a natural Libertarian attitude, the state capital is primed for crypto-minded entrepreneurs.

The city has hosted the Texas Bitcoin Conference since 2014 but more famously brings in hundreds of thousands of attendees for South by Southwest (SXSW) each spring. Although not focused on cryptocurrency, SXSW this year included several speakers and panels focused on blockchain and its impact on other industries.

As one of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S., it wouldn’t be surprising to see Austin solidify itself as the place to settle down a cryptocurrency headquarters.

Notable Companies/Projects: Factom, Wanchain

New York City, USA

Although many have fled due to the implementation of its BitLicense, New York is still a hotbed for blockchain innovation. With deep roots in financial markets, it’s only natural that the Big Apple is home to some of the most well-known crypto companies and exchanges.

Beyond New York’s sheer population dominance over other cities, it also hosts one of the largest blockchain conferences in the world – Consensus. This year, the conference has even expanded to an entire “Blockchain Week”. CoinDesk and the New York City Economic Development Corporation have partnered to organize the week’s events with the goal of making NYC a global blockchain capital.

With massive amounts of investment capital and the Winklevoss twins leading the charge for self-regulation, New York City could easily become the new capital of blockchain.

Notable Companies/Projects: Gemini, Blockstack, Consensys



A country rather than a city, Singapore is a strong magnet for companies looking to ICO. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), has stated time and again that they have no plans to regulate the industry and instead provide ample support.

They’ve embraced the new tech in an experimental project, Ubin. The project is in partnership with R3, and the goal is to “explore the use of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) for clearing and settlement of payments and securities.” Although not directly affecting regulation, Ubin helps members of the MAS further understand blockchain and the value it can bring.

The MAS has even gone further by allocating $150 million towards FinTech projects in the country.

Singapore also is home to FinTech Festival – the largest FinTech conference in the world. Over 30 thousand people from around the globe participate in the festival, bringing loads of talent to the small nation.

Notable Companies/Projects: Digix, TenX, Zilliqa

Zug, Switzerland

Already commonly called ‘Crypto Valley’, Zug is the current leader for the capital of blockchain title, and it’s clear why. Switzerland has historically been fairly lenient when it comes to banking and financial regulations.

On top of that, Zug has some of the lowest taxes in the nation and has taken a business-friendly approach to cryptocurrency. The government supports citizens paying in Bitcoin for some services and also uses Ethereum in a digital ID system.

Bitcoin Suisse, the financial service provider behind numerous high profile ICOs (Status, OmiseGo, SingularityNET) also calls Zug home.

Entrepreneurs in the area have formed the Crypto Valley Association to help foster growth of the ecosystem. This association collaborates with partners around the world and works with the local government to create fair blockchain regulations. Even so, the canton is far from having all the answers on how to regulate this new asset class. It’s a good sign, though, that government officials are openly working with the people that it affects most.

Notable Companies/Projects: Bitcoin Suisse, Xapo, ShapeShift, Monetas, Tezos

Decentralizing the Capital of Blockchain

These are just a few of the regions making a name for themselves in the blockchain space. With the decentralized nature of the industry, it’s entirely possible that one single “capital of blockchain” never surfaces. And, that’s a good thing.

In the end, we’re all on the same team. Projects should continue to collaborate across borders to ensure the success of the entire industry. Because when blockchain wins, we all win.


For further information about blockchains and the public policy regarding cryptocurrencies, please contact us via info@d-b-in.com

This article by Steven Buchko was originally published at CoinCentral.com.

Brexit Impact Scan

March 29th, 2019, the United Kingdom will no longer be part of the European Union. The Brexit has an undeniable impact on the economic market of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet, many entrepreneurs running their (international) business in the remaining EU members, tend to underestimate the impact the Brexit might have on their own business ventures. 

Therefore, the Dutch Tax Authorities designed a tool to assess the Brexit’s impact on companies located in the Netherlands. Based on a questionnaire about your company’s import, suppliers, transport, export, use of digital services and transport, the tool scans for the impact the Brexit entails for your Dutch-based company. In addition, you will also be advised on how to lower or avoid potential liabilities, based on the ongoing negotiations between the United Kingdom and Europe. 

 For more information about doing business in the Netherlands (or abroad), you can contact us atinfo@d-b-in.com.

The Benelux Office for the Intellectual Property (BOIP) has reached new important milestones.


The Benelux Office for the Intellectual Property (BOIP) has reached new important milestones in view of harmonization of European Trademark Law: the introduction of administrative cancellation and invalidation procedures. It herewith follows the procedural system of the EU IPO as already in force for many years.

For Trademark owners, these administrative proceedings entail the benefit it will no longer be required to initiate judicial proceedings, which are often more expensive and hence presented a higher threshold for taking contentious action.

These procedures will enter into force on 1 June 2018, together with the new competences of the Benelux Court of Justice, which is henceforth the new and sole appeal body for BOIP. Under the old regime, appeals against the decisions of the BOIP had to be filed with the Courts of Appeal of Brussels, The Hague or Luxemburg, which had led to some discrepancy in case law.

Until June 1, 2018 cancellation requests were settled before the national Courts. It was not possible to request cancellation or nullity of a Benelux Trademark registration (or International registration with protection in the Benelux) in administrative proceedings.

From now on the BOIP is competent to analyze and decide on requests for cancellation of a Trademark registration, on the same grounds as cancellation procedures before national courts.

Although it is still possible to bring such requests directly before any of the national courts, it is expected that the administrative procedure will be simpler, faster and cheaper compared to regular court proceedings.

Invalidation requests are applicable on either absolute (e.g. Devoid of distinctive character) or relative grounds (e.g. in conflict with earlier mark). Revocation of a Trademark right can be requested on the basis of non-use, or in case of a sign that has become generic or customary or misleading by use.

These cancellation grounds, which will be implemented in two steps, overlap with the grounds that can be invoked under the EU legal framework with the notable omission of ‘another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance’ as laid down in Art.8 (4) of the EUTM Regulation.

The administrative cancellation procedure is a further step in European harmonization. It is a considerable improvement as cancellation procedures are now more accessible.

That being said Trademark owners should be (more) cautious in properly using their Trademark and should collect evidence of use in order to defend their rights against a potential claim on the basis of non-use. Like the EU, the Benelux has the particular aspect of having multiple countries involved which is most likely to cause issues to grapple with in future decisions.


Other Changes in the Benelux

New opposition ground

In addition to opposition on the basis of an earlier right, a new ground can be relied on. Owner of Trademarks with a reputation in the Benelux territory may oppose to similar Trademarks, where use of the sign without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or to the repute of the earlier Trademark.

Just as for cancellation proceedings, opposition proceedings do not offer the ground of ‘another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance’.

Appeal in opposition proceedings

Lastly, a change will be achieved in divergent case law. Until last month appeal proceedings were decided by the national courts in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg. From now on they will be decided by the new second chamber of the Benelux Court of Justice in Luxembourg by means of an administrative procedure. This change is expected to contribute to more harmonized case law within the Benelux.


Tax Plan 2018 – What became reality?

On Prinsjesdag, the third Tuesday of September, the Dutch government starts her working year. With this new beginning, the government makes her plans for the upcoming year known to the public. Among these is the Tax Plan or “Belastingplan”, containing all proposed adjustments to the current Dutch tax regulations. 

Last year, on Prinsjesdag 2017, the government announced Tax Plan 2018, containing all the government’s aspirations and bills that would go into effect in 2018. As 2018 is coming to an end, it is time to review whether or not the government was able to put her money where the mouth is throughout 2018, especially since the new Prinsjesdag, when the government’s Tax Plan for 2019 will be disclosed, is fast approaching.

Realised Fiscal changes of Tax Plan 2018

In Tax Plan 2018, the Dutch government proposed some astounding fiscal changes. These changes can only go into effect with the approval of both Upper House and Lower House of Parliament, though. In the course of 2018, both Houses approved several bills, resulting in the following tax changes. 

  •  Homeowners who have (nearly) paid off their mortgage on their property are once again subject to a tax addition;
  • The government revoked the broadening of the corporate income tax’ first bracket, within which taxes are levied at a lower rate;
  • The tax rate for the innovation box, a provision to fiscally promote the innovative research by non-entrepreneurs, is now 7% instead of the previous rate of 5%;
  • The tax amnesty law in connection with undeclared assets has been abolished;
  • The ruling that exempted the agricultural sector of charging and thus declaring VAT on their services is no longer in effect;
  • With regards to gifts, the government has made two adjustments to the Dutch taxation system. Firstly, the deduction on the (corporate) income tax on gifts to cultural institutions has increased. Secondly, the Tax Authorities no longer levy taxes on the transfer of assets within a marriage or a (contractually defined) co-habitation if the transferred assets amount to more than half of the combined assets of both partners.

Fiscal changes of Tax Plan 2018 yet to be realized

Besides the realization of the aforementioned fiscal adjustments, Tax Plan 2018 contained several plans that would go into effect in 2019. Whether or not the following bills are still included in Tax Plan 2019, remains to be seen.

  • Instead of applying four different income tax rates, the government proposes a system of just two brackets and thus only two tax rates. The realization of this system is phased; 
  • A broadening of the tax deduction system would go into effect in 2019;
  • Corporate income tax will be subject to several adjustments. An additional interest deduction will be introduced. Secondly, the rates will be lowered. On corporate income up and until €200,000, taxes will be levied at a rate of 19% instead of 20%. For income above this threshold, the corporate income tax rate will be 24%  instead of 25%. By 2021, rates would be decreased to 16% and 21%, respectively. Contrary to this benefits, the Dutch government also proposes two more severe adjustments. The 9-year term to invoke relief of corporate losses will be limited to 6 years. In addition, the threshold value for the depreciation of commercial buildings in the BV will no longer be 50% of the cadastral value, but 100% instead;
  • The lowest VAT rate is to be increased from 6% up to 9%;
  • The Tax Authorities will levy withholding tax on interest and royalties;
  • The 30%-ruling will be applicable for a period of maximum 5 years. Up and until now, the 30%-ruling had a maximum duration of 8 years;
  • Finally, the plan to abolish dividend withholding tax was the most arousing and discussed proposal in the Tax plan 2018. Yet, the tax benefits the government hoped to introduce, will cost The Netherlands almost half a billion more than initially estimated.

With the ambitious Tax Plan 2018, the Dutch government hoped to create a healthy and attractive taxation system for both Dutch taxpayers as well as international businesses looking to invest in the Netherlands.


Are you interested in advice with regards to these changes? Please feel free tocontact us!

Blockchain and Public Policy

The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) has over the years been essential for the development of international tax law standards. It is their BEPS guidelines that have incapacitated many a tax evading set-up. Now, it seems that the OECD will also be the foremost authority in the field of blockchain and public policy. Early September it hosted a prestigious international conference on this subject. DTS was invited to join as tax specialists.

Most delegates – policy makers, consultants, scientists, politicians – agreed that the introduction of blockchain will be as disruptive as the development of the internet itself has been. And ‘disruptive’, like ‘revolutionary’, is an interesting word: rather positive for technicians and developers, somewhat worrying to government officials. Things will change, so much is clear. And of course: most of that change no one can as yet foresee. The ‘ledger of truth’ is on its way.

The influence of blockchain technology on taxation is twofold. First of all, there is the issue of how to tax blockchain-related profits. Most obvious example of this is profits gained with cryptocurrency mining and speculation, but there is also an increasing number of companies paying out salaries in various cryptocurrencies. Many countries are struggling with qualifying such gains. The Dutch treasury department has published some guidelines, but these are partly so vague and partly so wrong, that they need to be replaced soon. The line-up of the OECD conference speakers, however, suggested that Eastern Europe is leading the way in this field. Slovenia has adopted specific cryptocurrency paragraphs in its personal income tax act. Serbia sent its prime minister Brnabic to the event.

The other, more practical application of blockchain technology in the world of taxation is the levying of taxes itself. Withholding taxes especially could be automatically levied. Imagine legislation that would require every employment contract to be a blockchain-run ‘smart contract’, splitting up every payment in one part for the employee, and another for the state. Even VAT could be paid to the tax office directly upon purchasing a product. And back to the purchaser, if he is a VAT entrepreneur. In general, money movements can be monitored infinitely better than now. Why would the ECB not eventually back up the Euro with a ledger of truth? Every single Eurocent forever traceable, every transaction logged.

Of course, and the attentive reader felt we were getting here, there is also reason to worry. The ‘immutability’ of blockchain technology seems to preclude the ‘right to be forgotten’. The internet already has a frightening memory – the blockchain is equally omniscient, but harder to shut up. The ‘ledger of truth’ can be your ally, but your enemy as well. On the other hand, blockchain applications that do circumnavigate privacy issues (the Moneiro coin is the most infamous example) also manage to completely avoid any government or institutional control, which makes them extremely vulnerable to criminal use. This dilemma between the money laundering dangers of anonymity and the privacy issues around immutability will likely dominate public debate on blockchain and policy for the next couple of year. DTS is happy to be able to contribute to this debate.


Do not hesitate on contacting us for more information. 

Webshops en btw – Klaar voor de toekomst

Als u goederen levert aan particuliere afnemers binnen de EU, kunt u met buitenlandse btw-verplichtingen te maken krijgen. Als u de goederen vanuit Nederland verstuurt, gelden er momenteel omzetdrempels per land (in de meeste landen ligt de grens op € 35.000). Als u gedurende het jaar deze drempel overschrijdt, moet u zich voor de btw registreren en btw-aangifte doen in dat EU-land.

Houdt u lokaal voorraden aan, dan geldt er geen drempelbedrag en moet u zich altijd voor de btw registreren in het land waar de opslag plaatsvindt en btw-aangifte doen. Bij beperkte volumes kunnen de compliance kosten soms hoger zijn dan het voordeel in de verzendkosten. 

Als de goederen vanuit deze opslag worden verspreid naar andere landen, moet u daar de hiervoor genoemde drempelbedragen weer voor bijhouden, omdat u zich misschien ook daar zal moeten registreren. 

Vanaf 2021 komt er een belangrijke vereenvoudiging voor ‘afstandsverkopen’ (verkoop van goederen aan particulieren waarbij de goederen door of vanwege de verkoper worden verzonden). U hoeft dan namelijk niet meer te registreren in andere EU-landen, maar kunt alle verschuldigde btw in één aangifte in het land van verzending opgeven en betalen. 
Er zijn wel een paar belangrijke opmerkingen:

  • Bij het aanhouden van lokale voorraden moet u nog steeds registreren en aangifte doen in het land waar u voorraden aanhoudt;
  • De drempels per land vervallen, en worden vervangen door één drempel van € 10.000 voor alle leveringen aan EU-particulieren;
  • Als u lokaal voorraden aanhoudt, moet u nog steeds registreren voor de btw in dat land. Hiervoor geldt geen omzetdrempel.
  • Als u de € 10.000 drempel heeft overschreden, moet u rekening houden met alle btw-tarieven binnen de EU. De voorwaarden voor de lage of superlage tarieven zijn per land verschillend.

Voor meer informatie kan u steeds contact met ons opnemen.​​


Koffertje van … Hendrik-Jan van Duijn

Prinsjesdag, een hoogdag in de Nederlandse politiek, komt er weer snel aan. Op 17 september zal Koning Willem-Alexander in zijn troonrede het nieuwe regeringsbeleid voor 2019 bekend maken. Tot die tijd blijft het speculeren welke de Nederlandse overheid beraamd voor het volgende jaar. Over de fiscale verwachtingen en hun repercussies wou Nextens graag de mening van een kenner. In wat volgt, lees je Nextens’ interview met  Hendrik-Jan van Duijn, CEO van DTS Duijn’s Tax Solutions en International Tax Partner.

Koffertje van … Hendrik-Jan van Duijn

Binnenkort is het weer Prinsjesdag. Daarom gonst het op het Binnenhof en in Belastingland. Wat zit er dit jaar in het koffertje? En wat zouden fiscale experts in het koffertje willen stoppen? Deze vragen stellen we aan Hendrik-Jan van Duijn, oprichter en belastingadviseur bij Duijn’s Tax Solutions (DTS). “Prinsjesdag is voor het nieuwe kabinet een politiek spelletje.”

Wat verwacht u dat er in het koffertje zit?

Géén Wet DBA

“Laat ik het omdraaien. Ik verwacht namelijk dat de Wet DBA níet geregeld gaat worden. Het blijft lastig om dit goed te implementeren en daarbij iedereen te vriend te houden. Mensen aan de onderkant, met een uurtarief van minder dan 40 euro, hebben namelijk een apart belang. Die mensen zouden zonder flexibel werk niet aan een baan komen. En aan de bovenkant zitten mensen die meer dan 100 euro per uur verdienen. Die zouden, als ze in dienst zouden komen, heel veel belasting moeten betalen. Dat zou ervoor kunnen zorgen dat ze minder gaan werken.”

“Omdat je met al die partijen rekening moet houden, maakt het dat dit dossier een echt politiek wespennest is. Er ligt nu een vaag voorstel op tafel, om te kijken of ze kunnen zorgen dat mensen aan de onderkant in dienst komen. Dat is nog niet voldoende uitgewerkt en ik verwacht dat die uitwerking ook nog wel even op zich laat wachten.”

Dividendbelasting gaat door

De afschaffing van de dividendbelasting is een kokendheet hangijzer geworden. Wat gaat daarmee gebeuren? “Ik denk dat de afschaffing doorgaat”, stelt Van Duijn. En daar is hij blij mee ook. “Met de aankomende Brexit gaan veel bedrijven kijken naar andere landen binnen Europa. 1,4 miljard om een bedrijf als Shell of Unilever binnenboord te houden of andere grote bedrijven naar Nederland te krijgen, is een relatief klein bedrag. De afschaffing van de Dutch-discount zorgt voor een level playing field, zeker gezien Donald Trump de vennootschapsbelasting heeft verlaagd van 35 naar 13,5%.”

Wat zou u in het koffertje stoppen als u het voor het zeggen had?


Als het aan Van Duijn ligt, komt er een drastische complexiteitsreductie van de regelgeving. “Ik zou wensen dat de regering het bedrijfsleven niet de dupe laat worden van de ingewikkelde internationale regelgeving. Denk hierbij met name aan de fiscale eenheid en transferpricing. De regelgeving is zo ingewikkeld geworden, dat alleen beursgenoteerde bedrijven hier nog goed hun weg in kunnen vinden. De ingewikkelde regels belemmeren het zakendoen in Nederland voor het mkb en zorgen voor rechtsongelijkheid.”

Voor wat betreft de complexiteit in transferpricing, heeft Van Duijn wel een alternatief in gedachten. “Je kan bijvoorbeeld ondergrenzen instellen. De transferpricing documentatieverplichtingen zouden dan niet moeten gelden voor een belang kleiner dan 25.000 euro. Of je maakt het bij kleine bedragen mogelijk om te voldoen met een versimpelde transferpricingrapportage. Het is namelijk vrij duur om te voldoen aan de wetgeving als objectieve (gratis) informatie niet voorhanden is. Dan worden (kleine) bedrijven naar dure benchmarking-rapportagesystemen geduwd, wat ervoor zorgt dat het belang soms lager is dan de kosten. Dat is niet redelijk.”

Faciliterende overheid

“De verhouding tussen de overheid en ondernemers moet coöperatiever worden. Ik zou graag willen dat de overheid ondernemers helpt met het voldoen aan de regelgeving, in plaats van het slechts toetsen of het op de juiste manier is gebeurd. Dit geldt bijvoorbeeld voor boetes van de AFM aan accountantskantoren. Deze kantoren krijgen boetes om te zorgen dat ze het beter doen, maar dit werkt niet. Misschien moet de AFM eens met de accountantskantoren om tafel zitten over hoe ze daadwerkelijk verbeteringen door kunnen voeren, in plaats van het geven van een boete als een vinkje verkeerd staat.”

Flexibel werken

Van Duijn gelooft niet in sanctioneren, maar in belonen. Dat blijkt ook uit zijn idee voor de flexibilisering van de arbeidsmarkt. “Je ziet overal flexibilisering. Dat moet je niet met regelgeving proberen te beperken, maar juist faciliteren en kanaliseren. Ik zou een beloning creëren voor het aannemen van mensen in vaste dienst, in plaats van stellen dat bedrijven geen flexibele krachten meer mogen hebben. Je kunt bijvoorbeeld een vast dienstverband aantrekkelijker maken door werkgevers minder premies te laten betalen. Op deze manier vergoed je hen direct voor het extra risico dat ze lopen met werknemers.”

Wat zou u verder juist uit het koffertje halen?

Versobering fiscale eenheid

Tot voor kort konden bedrijven binnen Nederland die in hetzelfde concern zaten via de fiscale eenheid onderlinge rentebetalingen en –ontvangsten weglaten in de belastingaangifte. Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie oordeelde in februari echter dat Nederland de voordelen van de fiscale eenheid ook moet toestaan in grensoverschrijdende situaties. Staatssecretaris Menno Snel van Financiën diende hiertoe een reparatiewet in. In plaats van de voordelen voor binnen- en buitenlandse bedrijven te laten gelden, heeft de staatssecretaris de voordelen echter in zijn geheel geschrapt. Concreet betekent dit dat een Nederlands concern een fiscale eenheid kan blijven vormen, maar een aantal wettelijke elementen die een voordeel kunnen opleveren, dienen te worden toegepast alsof er geen fiscale eenheid is.

“Hierdoor krijg je binnen de fiscale eenheid opeens wel een rentelast die niet aftrekbaar is. Dat is een beetje raar en kost ondernemers heel veel geld. Ze zouden hier moeten kijken of de regeling echt leidt tot problemen. Wat willen ze oplossen? Het zou veel makkelijker zijn als ze ook in buitenlandse situaties fiscale eenheden toelaten. Waarom moet je in Nederland gevestigd zijn om in een fiscale eenheid te vallen? Ze maken het heel lastig, alleen om een soort schijnmisbruik te bestrijden.”

Aanpassing wet Hillen

“De Wet Hillen was bedoeld om mensen te stimuleren om hun lening af te lossen. Als je geen lening hebt, betaal je namelijk geen eigenwoningforfait. Dus heel veel mensen gingen aflossen. Toen ze er eenmaal waren, hadden ze geen eigenwoningforfait, een voordeeltje. Dat voordeeltje wordt nu afgepakt. Dat vind ik flauw en mag van mij uit het koffertje.”


“Ik zou willen dat de regering meer rekenschap neemt voor de mensen die door hun beslissingen geraakt worden. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de 30%-regeling voor buitenlandse werknemers. Met deze regeling mag de werkgever 30% van het loon belastingvrij verstrekken. De tijdsspan van deze regeling gaat ingekort worden van acht naar vijf jaar. Dit is niet zo’n groot probleem, want nieuwe mensen schrik je hier niet mee af. Maar de mensen die al in Nederland zitten, zijn er wel de dupe van. Zij hadden de verwachting acht jaar een belastingvoordeel te hebben, opeens gaat dit terug naar vijf jaar. Voor deze mensen zou een overgangsregeling moeten komen, want ze worden onevenredig hard geraakt.”





Wil u meer weten over Hendrik-Jan’s visie op de wetgeving omtrent belastingen of wenst u het advies van Hendrik-Jan, dan kan u steedscontact met ons opnemen.

Renumeration in Bitcoin is not Payment in Cash

There is no denial. Cryptocurrency and bitcoins, in particular, have become increasingly popular. Not only as an investment tool for young and upcoming individuals but in the corporate economic market as well. As cryptocurrency seems to be the currency of choice for the future capital traffic, the Belastingdienst (the Dutch Tax Authorities) are in the midst of creating an entire tax system for the cryptocurrencies. 

Since bitcoins and other cryptocurrency are payment in kind, they may not, as a rule, go untaxed. Earlier this year, though,  the Belastingdienst announced that bitcoins and other forms of cryptocurrency that employers pay to their employees are not payment in cash. 

If an organization pays its employees in bitcoins or other cryptocurrency, then this must be processed correctly on its payroll.  In the online manual Handboek Loonheffingen 2018, issued by the Belastingsdienst, employers were given instructions on how to determine the value of the cryptocurrency that they pay to their employees.  The value of the cryptocurrency in the course of trade is to be taken into account when doing this.  

Employers can determine the value of cryptocurrency that they pay out to their employees by using its value in euros at the moment of payment.  

In principle, all fees, benefits and provisions that an employer pays out to their employees, and that are not in cash, are payment in kind.  The employer must include these in taxable pay.  However, there are some forms of pay that need not be taxed.  It is possible that employees may have certain exemptions. We can help you determine if this is the case.  

If you would like more information about the cryptocurrency taxation by the Belastingsdienst, please do not hesitate tocontact us.           


When to file Annual Accounts at the Chamber of Commerce

Every year, companies registered with the Kamer van Koophandel or Chamber of Commerce must file their Annual Accounts. Generally, Annual Accounts can be submitted 8 days after adoption at the Chamber of Commerce. This general rule, though, leaves room for ambiguity since the deadline for submission depends on the type of corporation. Yet, It is legally not possible to get a postponement of the submission of annual accounts. In all cases, the annual accounts must be filed within 12 months of the end of the financial year. 

Here you will find a layout of the most important points to remember.


Deposit Deadline  
The specific deadlines for submission are based on the type of corporation. 
For the bv (private company), as the most common type of corporation, the following rules apply:
Within 5 months of the end of the financial year, the board completes the accounts and presents them to the shareholders.
The shareholders can give the board permission to postpone this for 5 months in exceptional circumstances.
Subsequently, the shareholders have 2 months to adopt the annual accounts
If the financial and calendar years correspond, then the final deadline for submission is July 31st (5 + 2 months).  With the maximum postponement possible, this date can run to December 31st.

If each shareholder is also a director or supervisory director, signing of the annual accounts immediately leads to adoption.  In this case, the 2 month adoption period no longer applies.  For a private company, this means that you submit your accounts within 10 months and 8 days of the end of the financial year.  If the financial and calendar years are the same, the final submission date is thus November 8th.

Accounts that are not adopted on time
What if the shareholders have not adopted the annual accounts on time?  Then you submit the current annual accounts.  For a private company, these are submitted within 7 months of the end of the financial year.  If you have a maximum postponement of 5 months, you then submit the current financial accounts within 12 months (7 +5 months) after the end of the financial year.

Submit on time       
Not submitting annual accounts on time is prosecutable as an economic offense.  The Bureau Economische Handhaving (Office for Economic Enforcement) of the Belastingdienst (Inland Revenue) can draw up an official report on the basis of which the Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutor) can impose a financial fine or refer the case to a judge.
Furthermore, you can become personally responsible if you do not submit your accounts on time and if your company goes bankrupt.  Ensure therefore that you submit your accounts within the appropriate time period.  The requirement to submit accounts is valid to the date of its removal.  

Please feel free to contact us for more information the Chamber of Commerce or Annual Accounts.