State Secretary Snel of the Ministry of Finance has announced that the objection to the Box 3 levy will be classified as a mass objection. PLEASE NOTE: this does not mean that the outcome of the proceedings will apply to everyone.
Massive objection
The designation as a mass objection relates to the objection procedure concerning the levying of income tax on income from savings and investments (Box 3) for 2017. Proceedings are also ongoing for the years 2013 to 2016 inclusive. These are the years in which the flat-rate return was 4%. From 2017 onwards, a flat-rate return applies which increases as the Box 3 assets rise.
The designation as a mass appeal relates to (test) proceedings brought by the Taxpayers’ Association. For the Tax and Customs Administration, designation as a mass appeal means the process can be handled more efficiently. For example, it is then not necessary to issue individual decisions on the appeals.
Lodging an individual objection
Although the mass objection procedure will be applied, each individual taxpayer must lodge an objection against the income tax assessment issued to them. This must be done in good time: within 6 weeks of the date of the assessment (which is usually a few days after the day the notice lands in your letterbox). The Tax and Customs Administration has been busy for several weeks now issuing final tax assessments for 2017. There is therefore a real chance that the objection period is already underway.
Is the procedure of the BvB Promising? We don’t think so, but success is, of course, not impossible. See also our article Another objection to Box 3.
An unreasonable burden?
Here’s a little example. Court in The Hague On 4 May, the court ruled in a case involving €2,911 in interest received. The tax on the savings was higher: €4,634. That represents a tax rate of 159%(!). Referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, the District Court ruled that the levy does not constitute an excessive burden. In general terms, the legislature has not exceeded the (broad) margin of discretion available to it. Nor, in the specific case, did the District Court consider the burden to be excessive: the fact that the savings (amounting to €410,650) had to be drawn upon to pay the tax did not alter this conclusion.