The Supreme Court states that eating into the assets you declared in box 3 as a result of the box 3 tax may be a disproportionate burden. The case in question was about a woman who disagreed with the box 3 tax for 2016 and 2017 because the ratio of interest revenue (€ 2,166) to tax (€ 12.603) led to an individual and disproportionate burden. The Court and the Court of Appeal found that this was not the case, as the woman was in possession of an unmortgaged home and her assets were sufficient. The woman appealed in cassation.
The Supreme Court declared her appeal in cassation well-founded. The Court of Appeal should have investigated whether the tax resulted in an individual and disproportionate burden if the tax exceeded the actual return. The Court stated that with a tax on income, the legislator did not intend a tax that would make her eat into her assets to pay that tax. Therefore, the fact that tax made her eat into her assets could be an indication of a disproportionate burden.
Supreme Court, July, 2021, ECLI (abridged): 1047