Dutch Supreme Court limits tax interest due from CIT payers

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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


Dutch Supreme Court limits tax interest due from CIT payers

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_piper.png
Sunset over Amsterdam cityscape

Jian-Cheng Ku and Taco Pennings of DLA Piper Netherlands discuss a recent ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court regarding the calculation of corporate income tax interest

On January 16 2026, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the tax interest rate applicable on corporate income tax payables is excessive in some years, resulting in a conclusion that the 8% rate applied by the Dutch tax authorities should be reduced to 4%.

Case details

Tax interest on corporate income tax payables starts accruing six months after the fiscal year-end. As of 2022, the applicable tax rate has been 8% for corporate income tax. A taxpayer considered this rate excessively high and challenged it before the courts.

In 2024, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the 8% interest rate was excessive. Subsequently, the case was submitted directly to the Dutch Supreme Court. The state secretary of finance also marked objections from other taxpayers as a “mass objection” procedure (massaalbezwaarprocedure).

Court decision

The Dutch Supreme Court first considered that the tax interest rate set is based on a generally binding regulation. Consequently, the court is allowed to review whether the tax interest rate is compatible with Dutch general principles of law.

Due care and adequate reasoning

When reviewing the regulation from a principles of due care and adequate reasoning perspective, the Dutch Supreme Court noted that, in the case of fiscal measures resulting in increased tax burdens, the court should assess whether the legitimate interests of affected taxpayers have been taken into account.

In this case, the Dutch Supreme Court considered that those interests had been sufficiently taken into account. In this respect, the legislator explicitly recognised that the tax interest rate is perceived as a financial burden by taxpayers. The Dutch Supreme Court therefore agreed with the District Court that the regulation covering tax interest was prepared with due care by the legislator.

Principles of proportionality and equality

The Dutch Supreme Court also reviewed the measure from the perspective of the principle of proportionality. Based on the legislative history, the Dutch Supreme Court concluded that the (high) interest rate primarily served a budgetary purpose and that no additional objectives were identified that could justify imposing a higher tax interest rate only on corporate income tax payers. In this respect, different tax rates apply, for example, for individuals.

Because this budget-driven measure placed an additional financial burden on only one group of otherwise comparable taxpayers without adequate justification, this results in unequal and disproportionate treatment. The Dutch Supreme Court therefore considered that the provision conflicts with the principles of proportionality and equality.

Implications for other cases

With a view to a significant number of pending cases relating to tax interest rates for corporate income tax under the mass objection procedure, the Dutch Supreme Court made the following observations. For similar cases, the tax interest rate should be determined with reference to the rate applicable to other taxes, which should be 4% or 4.5% in the years from 2022 onwards.

Key takeaways

Taxpayers whose objections were designated as part of the mass objection procedure can expect these objections to be resolved in line with this judgment. For companies that have not yet received a final corporate income tax assessment, or received one within the last six weeks, it is important to review and file an objection if the 8% rate has been applied. In this objection, taxpayers can challenge the tax interest rate used and request a recalculation using the updated figure.

This ruling gives a strong legal basis for reduction and recalculation of the applied tax interest.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Advisers won’t be short of work in a world of increased valuation disputes, documentation requirements and behavioural responses from clients seeking to protect their wealth
Jaydeep Menon explains how Frazier & Deeter built a specialist practice which helps UK start-ups expand into the US and why private equity backing is accelerating its ambitions
As joint audits, data sharing and pillar two reshape tax controversy, multinational groups can no longer afford to manage disputes one jurisdiction at a time
Brazil's tax system is being reshaped by VAT , pillar two and TP reform. Fallet explains why those changes convinced him to lead a new practice
The agreement with Daribatech, alongside recent high-profile investment in talent, suggests the firm is gearing up for a significant push in the region
Several factors have led to a steady transition of TP work away from traditional advisers and towards full-service law firms, DLA Piper’s new TP leader says
Julian Balson's departure from EY's Tier 1 tax controversy practice for lower-ranked Fieldfisher represents one of the more eye-catching UK hires of the year
Former IRS commissioner Danny Werfel argues that the biggest obstacle to AI adoption in tax is not technology, but trust, and introduces a practical AI risk framework to help
Howell takes a deep dive into how he led the landmark PepsiCo dispute, discusses the ATO's enforcement priorities, and emphasises KordaMentha's market ambitions
Global tax leader David Linke said that the TaxSim gaming programme could replace aspects of traditional face-to-face learning
Gift this article