Netherlands: Proposed Dutch conditional exit tax: EU-proof or not?
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Netherlands: Proposed Dutch conditional exit tax: EU-proof or not?

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_piper.png
Many issues have been raised about the current solution

Jian-Cheng Ku and Tim Mulder of DLA Piper consider the practical implications of introducing a conditional exit tax to the dividend tax act in the Netherlands.

On July 10 2020, a Dutch left-wing opposition party, submitted a legislative proposal to introduce a conditional exit tax in the Dutch Dividend Withholding Tax (DWT) Act. This conditional exit tax should apply in case of certain cross-border reorganisations.



One of the aims of this proposal is to prevent multinationals that have their corporate head office in the Netherlands, from migrating to foreign jurisdictions that have no DWT, without first paying Dutch DWT on their (latent) retained earnings. This proposal is mainly triggered by the potential migration of two of the Netherlands’ largest multinational enterprises to the UK.

Dutch dividend withholding tax as of certain cross-border reorganisations

The Netherlands has a domestic DWT rate of 15% that applies to dividend distributions from a Dutch entity to its shareholders. In the case that the shareholder is a corporate entity holding an interest of generally more than 5%, the DWT might be reduced or fully exempt under the domestic DWT exemption or one of the many tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands.



Currently, the Dutch DWT Act does not provide for an exit tax in case the entity’s Dutch tax residency ends by virtue of a cross-border reorganisation. This is for example in case the Dutch entity converts its legal form into the legal form of a foreign jurisdiction and migrates its place of effective management, or in case of a cross-border merger.



Therefore, if a Dutch entity has portfolio shareholders, for example because the entity is listed, then the Netherlands will not be able to levy DWT on the entity’s (latent) retained earnings to these shareholders, if the entity migrates to a foreign jurisdiction.

Legislative proposal

The legislative proposal introduces a conditional exit tax in the form of a deemed dividend distribution that is triggered in case of certain cross-border reorganisations. The reorganisations covered by this proposal include a cross-border legal merger or demerger, share for share exchange or transfer of the place of effective management. Only to the extent that the Dutch entity migrates through such cross-border reorganisation and the entity migrates to a jurisdiction that has a DWT rate of nil or almost nil, or gives a step up in basis for DWT purposes, a deemed dividend distribution is triggered. Initially, the proposal would only apply to Dutch entities that are part of a multinational group that has a net turnover of €750 million ($872.2 million). However, following the public debate and potential EU tax aspects, this threshold is eliminated.



For DWT purposes, the Dutch entity is deemed to distribute its (latent) retained earnings to its shareholder(s), prior the migration. This is to the extent that the shareholder(s) qualify for the domestic DWT or treaty exemption, the migration has effectively no DWT considerations. This is different in case a shareholder does not qualify for an exemption. In such situation, the Dutch entity may file a request for deferral of the payment of the DWT. If granted, the deferral will be terminated when the dividends are actually paid.

EU aspects

One of the key questions with respect to this legislative proposal is whether it is in line with the EU principles, including free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, and EU Directives. Insofar the Dutch entity migrates to another EU member state and triggers the conditional exit tax, there might be an infringement of EU principles.



An exit tax in itself is an infringement on the freedom of establishment, however the Court of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in the National Grid Indus case, that such infringement can be justified. Such justification can be the allocation of taxation rights between EU member states. However, since the CJEU has only ruled about exit tax for corporate income tax purposes and not for DWT purposes, which has a different nature, it is unclear yet if the Dutch legislative proposal can also rely on this justification.



Furthermore, it is likely that the legislative proposal is not in line with the EU Merger Directive and EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive since a cross-border merger could result in taxation of EU shareholders.

Comments

Although the legislative proposal is big news in the Netherlands, when considered among the other political pressures to keep multinationals in the Netherlands, the proposal itself should have an impact on only a small number of companies. Multinationals having a Dutch entity which is held by a group company residing in a jurisdiction that has a tax treaty with the Netherlands, should generally qualify for the domestic DWT exemption. Therefore in such situation, the deemed dividend distribution has effectively no impact.



However, for situations that are covered by this legislative proposal, it is doubtful whether this matches with the EU principles and EU Directives. Therefore, it will be interesting to see if the legislative proposal in its current form will and can ultimately be adopted.


Jian-Cheng Ku

T: +31 20 541 9911 

E: jian-cheng.ku@dlapiper.com




Tim Mulder

T: +31 0 20 5419 276

E: tim.mulder@dlapiper.com




more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The firm’s new Asia-Pacific head James Badenach tells ITR that A&M Tax can provide an alternative in the region to a “constrained” ‘big four’
As the firm declined to speak with ITR over its progress, senator Deborah O’Neill branded PwC Australia’s recent parliamentary responses as ‘unsatisfactory’
A Swedish company’s CEO working part-time in Denmark led to a noteworthy PE decision; in other news, Latham & Watkins grew its London tax team
Rather than outright replace human intelligence, AI solutions can serve as the ‘infinite intern’ tax advisers need to automate onerous tasks, argues Russell Gammon of Tax Systems
The lack of provision for bilateral advance pricing agreements is a notable omission from proposed reforms of Brazil’s transfer pricing rules
Ursula von der Leyen is under pressure to ensure her new team makes competitiveness a top priority. How tax policy is designed and implemented is crucial, writes Ralph Cunningham
Speaking exclusively at ITR’s Transfer Pricing Forum in Europe, the Commission’s Marc Clercx also addressed industry concerns over the arm’s-length principle
After a protracted offensive from 10 Australian professional bodies, a Senate motion to strike out contentious new tax ethical rules has failed, but concessions were secured
The closely watched decision represents the final nail in the coffin for Apple and serves as a warning to other multinationals, experts have suggested
UK tax advisers have branded Reeves’ pledge to cap corporation tax at 25% as “a smart move” and “an easy give”
Gift this article