https://www.bnr.nl/radio/bnr-juridische-zaken/10307501/5-juli-ondernemen-met-je-eigen-huis

Tax avoidance is legal because it involves taking advantage of opportunities to pay as little tax as possible, within the limits of the law: after all, everyone has the right to choose the most tax-efficient option. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegal because it involves deliberately filing no or incorrect tax returns, or failing to pay the tax due (tax fraud).

The line between the two forms of tax savings is not always clear-cut because there is disagreement about how the law should be interpreted. Did someone pay no or less tax based on sound arguments ("defensible position"), or was the State Treasury deliberately and unlawfully disadvantaged? This is a matter for tax lawyers.

An example of taxpayers categorized as tax evaders are those who hold accounts in countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg with banks like UBS, Credit Suisse, and Safra Sarasin, which—as the last of the Mohicans—had banking secrecy that is now increasingly eroding. While multinationals are currently facing no tax obstacles, State Secretary for Finance Wiebes is significantly increasing the pressure on these tax evaders.

This means the penalty for those who fail to declare their undeclared assets to the Tax and Customs Administration by July 1, 2016, will be doubled from 60% to 120% of the amount of tax evaded. Anyone who fails to use the special voluntary disclosure scheme before July 1, 2016, therefore risks losing their entire (undeclared) savings to income tax, interest, and penalties. Fortunately, we see at least two arguments to limit the damage for those who voluntarily disclose.

First, there's currently a debate about whether the wealth tax in Box 3 violates property rights, as the law assumes a fictitious annual return of 4%. Not everyone achieves that return on their undeclared assets. Paying tax (following a voluntary disclosure) while making (almost) no return then leads to a violation of ownership and thus to an infringement of property rights.

Secondly, the fine percentage for those who have voluntarily repented has been lower in the past – at one point even as low as 0% – so those who have voluntarily repented now should be able to benefit from those previous, lower fine percentages (based on the principle of criminal law legality).

While Wiebes' strict intentions to crack down even more on tax evaders are certainly debatable, he's right that the net is closing in. The upcoming UBO register, which the Netherlands must have in place by June 26, 2017, also contributes to this. The ultimate beneficial owners of each entity will be listed in this public register (see our blog).

Whether the net will ultimately be completely free of loopholes remains to be seen, but playing hide-and-seek with the tax authorities will certainly not become any easier.

Money in an old sock is not tax fraud nrc next March 15, 2016

Click here for the article

A tax break essentially always amounts to a tax credit, or a tax subsidy. For an international audience, we often refer to this as a "tax bonus" (because that's catchy). A tax bonus that's interesting for startups is the WBSO (Funding for Research and Development Act). WBSO stands for the Act on the Promotion of Research and Development (Wet Bevordering Speur- en Ontwikkelingswerk). The title of this act speaks for itself: the Dutch government wants to promote research and development (R&D). R&D activities are—in English—research and development activities, that is, activities within a company that lead to the development of a new product or the improvement of an existing one. In short: innovative activities.

How does the WBSO work?

A concrete example of R&D activities is developing an application for a website or mobile phone. If you've already developed an app, it may need improvement, for example, because it's overloaded at certain times due to too many users (a so-called "bottleneck"). You'll spend time resolving such a bottleneck. The man-hours associated with such innovative work are eligible for the WBSO (Funding for Work and Income (Capacity for Business) Act).

The WBSO (Funding for Innovative Workers) reduces payroll tax on the hours a company invests in innovation. For example, if three technicians in your company spend 40 hours per month developing a specific product, you'll receive a reduction in the payroll tax payable to the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration for those hours. How much is this reduction? It depends on the number of hours spent on innovative activities and the hourly wage.

Lower payroll tax

The minimum hourly wage for the WBSO is €29. If three developers are working full-time on innovation for a month, this generally results in a discount of €35%, or 3 x 40 hours (full-time) x €29 x €35% = €1,218 per month. For startups, the percentage is €50%, so the discount in this example amounts to €1,740. This amount would normally have to be paid to the tax authorities as payroll tax, but thanks to the WBSO, the company keeps this amount for itself.

To qualify for the WBSO, an application must be submitted to the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO). The application must precisely describe the innovative nature of the activities for which the WBSO is being applied. Once the WBSO is granted, it opens the door to other tax incentives such as the R&D deduction and the innovation box. The WBSO is essentially your ticket to many other tax breaks and tax bonuses.

Article NRC 14 July 2015: Martin Lambregts & Dennis Evertsz – Tax attack on Airbnb: fear not

If a taxpayer fails to provide any or incorrect information to the Tax Authorities, the Tax Authorities may impose a tax assessment based on an estimate, with a reversal of the burden of proof. In other words: a tax assessment based on presumptions that the taxpayer must prove to be false. In this article, Martin Lambregts and Arthur Kan argue, based on recent Supreme Court case law, that this cannot apply to a potential administrative fine imposed simultaneously with the assessment. This would violate the criminal presumption of innocence.

Click here for the full article

This contribution was written by Martin Lambregts

Click here for the full article

Column at Tax Live

On January 20, 2015, the hearing focused on compensation for the damages incurred due to last year's excise duty increases. During the proceedings, it is crucial that a clear explanation is provided as to why the consequences of the 2014 excise duty increases are so disastrous for border gas station operators.

The verdict is expected on February 3, 2015. We will keep you updated.

https://beta-tankstations.nl/vandaag-kort-geding-grenspompen/#.VL-fsbNMsiC