Dutch Asset Tax Overhaul Approved: Actual Returns to Replace Fictitious Gains by 2028

2026-02-14 global

The Hague, Friday, 13 February 2026.
On February 12, 2026, the Dutch House of Representatives officially approved a landmark overhaul of the Box 3 asset tax regime, scheduled for implementation on January 1, 2028. This legislation marks a critical shift from taxing controversial fictitious returns to levying taxes on actual value increases. However, the most intriguing aspect of this reform is its precarious political standing; while the law introduces a capital growth tax on unrealized “paper” gains, a majority of lawmakers simultaneously demanded a transition to a realized gains tax before the 2028 start date. Consequently, while this vote aims to resolve a decade of legal disputes regarding fairness, it effectively establishes a legislative placeholder, leaving the final taxation method for stocks and cryptocurrencies in a state of flux.

A Hybrid System: Accretion Versus Realization

The newly approved legislation introduces a dual approach to asset taxation intended to replace the unlawful fictitious return model. Under the new regime, effective January 1, 2028, the default method for most assets—including savings, shares, bonds, and cryptocurrencies—will be a ‘capital accretion tax’ (vermogensaanwasbelasting) [4][6]. This mechanism taxes the annual increase in value of an asset regardless of whether that profit has been realized (cashed out) or remains on paper [1][3]. Conversely, less liquid assets such as real estate and shares in start-ups will fall under a ‘capital gains tax’ (vermogenswinstbelasting), where taxation occurs only upon the transfer or sale of the asset [2][4]. For real estate specifically, the system will also levy tax annually on rental income or apply a vacancy addition, set at 3.35% of the property’s WOZ value for own use [3][4].

Legislative Ambivalence and Future Revisions

Despite the bill’s passage on February 12, 2026, the political consensus is fragile, with many parties viewing this law merely as an interim step rather than a final solution [2][7]. A significant point of contention remains the taxation of unrealized gains; a parliamentary majority has explicitly instructed the cabinet to develop an alternative proposal that taxes only realized returns—money actually received by the investor—by Budget Day (Prinsjesdag) 2028 [1][6]. This creates a complex timeline where the ‘accretion’ tax is set to begin in 2028, yet lawmakers are simultaneously demanding a pivot to a ‘realization’ based system for that same timeframe or shortly thereafter [2][5]. Consequently, while the law provides immediate legal clarity, the long-term structural reality of Dutch asset taxation remains subject to change [1].

Analyzing the Financial Impact

For investors, the shift to actual returns fundamentally alters the calculation of net profitability. The new system proposes a flat tax rate of 36% on actual returns, with a tax-free allowance of €1,800 per taxpayer (€3,600 for fiscal partners) [3][4]. Under the previous system, a fictitious yield assumption often resulted in a lower effective tax burden during high-return market cycles. For example, based on historical stock market returns of 9%, the previous effective tax burden was approximately 2.16%, leaving a net return of 6.84% [5]. Under the new 36% regime, the tax burden on that same 9% profit rises to 3.24%, resulting in a reduced net return of 5.76% [5]. However, the new system offers protection in poor market years, as losses exceeding €500 can be carried forward to offset future gains, a safeguard absent in the old fictitious model [3][4].

Transitional Challenges and Legal Hurdles

Before the 2028 implementation can proceed, the bill requires approval from the Senate (Eerste Kamer), which must occur by mid-March 2026 to ensure the Tax and Customs Administration has sufficient time to adapt its ICT systems [3][4]. In the interim period leading up to 2028, the tax authority continues to use the fictitious return method, though it is now legally rebuttable; taxpayers can argue for a reduction if they can prove their actual returns were lower than the state’s assumption [1][4]. This transitional phase has placed a heavy administrative burden on the government, which is already facing billions in costs related to refunding overpaid taxes from the unlawful Box 3 years and potential interest payments on those refunds [1][2].

Sources

Asset Taxation Netherlands