Share this
By Taxperience on June 2025
On Thursday June 12, 2025, the House of Representatives discussed the counter-evidence scheme Box 3 to be implemented. However, the proposed amendments for exceptions for private real estate investors were voted down on the basis of budgetary or feasibility grounds.
Although the House of Representatives acknowledges that private real estate investors are taxed more heavily in Box 3 than investors in so-called liquid assets, no further action is being taken to rectify this difference.
Under the adopted counter-evidence scheme, private real estate investors therefore face a levy on value increases of the real estate held that are not (yet) realized in actual gain; without being able to take into account the maintenance costs incurred by the taxpayer when determining the taxable return on investment for Box 3. A proposal to this effect from CDA and Christen Unie was rejected because its implementation would lead to further delays in the introduction of the subsequent Box 3 Real Return on Investment Act. The VVD faction did not want any delays for fear of further budget overruns (estimated at approximately €3 billion per year of delay). A proposal by the BBB to enable a one-off transfer at lower value of Box 3 real estate to Box 2 (substantial interest) also failed on budgetary grounds.
Although the Cabinet and the House of Representatives are still working on a possible extension of the so-called “Hugo de Jonge” rental law, private investments in real estate seems to have become less interesting now that actual cost deduction has been further hampered. Starting court proceedings may be the only way to get (some form of) relief. However, that involves a long-term path (and costs) with an uncertain outcome, given the present Supreme Court rulings regarding actual return on investment and how to determine this.
If you would like more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact us, we will be happy to assist you further.