After the tax reform (which already seems to have largely run aground by now) and the car letter II, there was still one file on the desk of State Secretary of Finance Wiebes that needed to be dealt with before the summer recess: the issue of self-administered pensions of director-major shareholder (dga). In a letter dated 1 July 2015, Wiebes outlined the directions for solutions, which he intends to discuss further with the Chamber after the recess.
Wiebes describes two possible solutions to the problems surrounding self-administered pensions (PEB):
1. the oudedsgsbestemmingsreserve (OBR);
2. a defined contribution scheme with a fixed interest rate (retirement savings under own management; OEB).
In addition, he suggests the possibility of a phase-out. By this, he refers to creating an option to end self-administered pensions altogether.
The retirement income reserve (OBR) is best compared to the (fiscal) retirement reserve known in company profits. Annually, a part of the profit of the private limited company related to the salary of the director and major shareholder is excluded from the levy of corporate income tax and reported on the fiscal balance sheet. At some point, the amount thus created administratively must be converted into an annuity and the annuity payments are taxed with payroll tax. The OBR is only an administrative reserve, from which neither the dga, nor his survivors, can derive any rights.
In the case of self-administered retirement savings (OEB), a percentage of the director and major shareholder's salary is set aside annually in the private limited company for his or her pension. Unlike the OBR, a pot is set aside in the capital of the private limited company, to which the director and major shareholder have a legally enforceable right and which the private limited company cannot use for anything other than the director's pension. Interest is added to the DGA's pension pot annually. The additions to the pot (allocation and interest) are not taxed with payroll tax. The payments, of course, are.
Wiebes concludes from his analysis of both solution options that the OEB will solve more bottlenecks and create fewer new problems than the OBR. But he is happy to enter into a debate with the Chamber on this.
The aim is still to have the PEB alternative take effect on 1 January 2016, but Wiebes says that diligence takes precedence over speed. The transitional law in particular could still cause (additional) headaches.