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

The move reinforces Milan’s role as a key European hub for international business, the firm said
Australia’s government has also announced that it will implement the pillar two side-by-side agreement
Sara Morgan is due to join Joseph Hage Aaronson & Bremen as a partner in London, ITR understands
The newly combined tax team has already worked on thousands of joint client matters, leaders from McDermott Will & Schulte tell ITR
As AI becomes increasingly intuitive and idiot-proof, its tax applicability is becoming impossible to overstate
New data on public CbCR showed uneven adoption, as Singapore advanced pillar two compliance and firms expanded their tax capabilities
Nearly two years after its publication, the Corporate Tax Roadmap is reshaping the UK’s TP framework through incremental reforms focused on scope, transparency and earlier HMRC intervention
With a stark divergence between MNEs that prepared early and those rushing to catch up, advisers must remain agile with all manner of compliance risks
The EU agreed new cooperative and investigative measures to tackle VAT fraud, while Hungary faced legal action and Lavez Coutinho expanded its indirect tax team
The arrival of a team from Brazilian rival Costa Tavares Paes Advogados brings SiqueiraCastro’s tax headcount to seven partners and 30 associates
Gift this article