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.

    Decapitilizing box 3 is a disproportionate burden

    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

    Share this article on: