Already an account? Log in

    Try Tax Rendement

    With 13 published issues in a calendar year Tax Rendement offers the most up to date answers to your professional questions with news, themes and articles.

    Subscribe to Tax Rendement for the next three months for only € 3, excluding VAT (normal price is € 99 per year). This offer applies to a business trial subscription, valid until cancellation.

    Fill out the form below and subscribe

    Are you interested in similar English publications? Rendement also offers (for HR professionals), (about Dutch payroll regulations) and (about Dutch financial SME-news). Try these publications for three months each for € 3, excluding VAT. Normal price is €99 per year.

    Promo code (when available)

    We ask you to agree to our General Terms and Conditions and read our Privacy Policy.

    When clicking on subscribe, you automatically give permission to receive the newsletter and offers, with which we inform you about relevant products and services of Rendement Uitgeverij BV. If you do not want this, please contact us via You can also withdraw the consent at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link at the bottom of each email.

    Box 3 slated by the court

    The new system for saving and investment taxes is unreasonable and discriminatory, according to the Court of Groningen. But solving it is up to the legislator, not to the court. And so in this case, the tax payer is left empty-handed for now.

    The court consulted the legislative history in this case and concluded that the legislator was aware of the fact that returns on investing and on saving were very different. And also that 40% of the taxpayers in box 3 only had savings. To assume then that the assets of all taxpayers are divided between investments and savings in the same way is unreasonable, according to the court.


    The tax inspector argued that in this way the system remains simple and the possibilities of shifting assets to reduce taxation are curtailed. But the court found no justification for the group of savers only having to face ‘an unreasonably high tax burden’. The court would not have come to a different conclusion if the box 3 tax rates or exempted capital were different. The problem is the assumed asset mix, which differs too much from reality for too large a group of savers only. The taxpayer in this case was not really helped financially with this judgement. For the court could not remedy ‘the discriminatory nature of the tax’. That is up to legislature. Therefore, the appeals were declared unfounded.

    Court of North Netherlands, August 2, 2021, ECLI (abridged): 3208

    Share this article on: