Supreme Court Decision

Dear all, 

We have reached the end of the road. We are sorry to say that the Supreme Court has not ruled in our favor. A letter from the legal team is below. 

On a personal note, to our community, thank you for entrusting us to shepherd this process. We are disappointed, but truly believe that our strong voice will be remembered even if the outcome was not as we wanted.

Sincerely,

Team UENL

---

Dear all,
 
On February 13, 2026, the Dutch Supreme Court published its ruling in the 6 court cases. Despite the committed efforts of the legal team (which has seized all opportunities to present the different arguments in these cases), regrettably, in these court cases the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that in its view the legislator stayed within its wide margin of appreciation with the introduction of the (limited) transitional rules when reducing the duration of the 30% ruling.
 
The legal team wished they had been able to present you with better news. As flagged before, the nature of these court cases unfortunately makes these cases an ‘uphill battle’ where the Dutch Supreme Court is requested to ‘overturn’ legislation (democratically) put in place by the Dutch legislator. Albeit that the Dutch Supreme Court has proven itself willing to do so in certain other cases (for example, in case of the box 3 Dutch personal income taxation regime in respect of savings and investment income taxation), the Dutch Supreme Court does tread carefully in this respect recognizing that the legislator has a ‘wide margin of appreciation’ when implementing new legislation.
 
Notwithstanding these unfortunate rulings of the Dutch Supreme Court, your massive participation in these court cases should not be considered in vain as they nevertheless signal a clear message to the Dutch legislator, which has more recently also been amplified by large multinationals pushing back hard on further changes to the 30% ruling in these last years. All of these factors no doubt make the Dutch legislator tread much more carefully when considering changes going forward, better recognizing the considerable value expats bring to the Dutch society and the Dutch economy and the need for consistent and reliable legislation with respect to the 30% ruling respecting expectations raised. Therefore, we wish to express our gratitude once again for your participation in these court procedures and allowing us to voice your views in this matter.
 
Impact for your individual case

What this effectively means for your specific individual case depends on whether your case was approved by the Dutch tax authorities to be part of our legal proceedings or not and whether you did or did not accept the offer from the Dutch tax authorities in case your case was not part of the legal proceedings.

• If your case was part of the legal proceedings, the Dutch tax authorities will now reject the appeal(s) filed and with that the procedure is concluded.

• If your case was not part of the legal proceedings and you received the offer letter from the Dutch tax authorities and accepted their offer to await the outcome of these proceedings, the Dutch tax authorities will inform you that they will also deny your appeal(s) filed and no further action is possible (as per the agreed up on).

• If your case was not part of the legal proceedings and you received the offer letter from the Dutch tax authorities and you did not accept their offer to await the outcome of these proceedings, you may continue to litigate your case with your own legal representative. However, please be aware that these Supreme Court case rulings will likely have a negative impact on your case as well. We therefore advise you to further consult with your legal representative on this matter.

Court Decision | Supreme Court Next

The Court of Appeal rendered their decision - turning down all appeals that we made. The legal team has appealed the decision with the Dutch Supreme Court this March. We now wait (which can take several months). More information about the Court of Appeal’s ruling can be found below.

 ##

SUMMARY

In brief the Court of Appeal’s ruling in 3 of their 6 rulings may be summarized as follows:

1. No ‘special circumstances’ which the legislator failed to make part of his considerations for the legislative change - The Court of Appeal rules that in parliamentary history the legislator did explicitly also take into consideration the reduction of the duration of the 30% ruling for existing cases and this has even resulted in the introduction of limited transitional rules. On this basis the Court of Appeal does not agree there are any special circumstances which the legislator failed to make part of his considerations for the legislative change.

2. No conflict with the Article 1 First Protocol of the ECHR and the requirement that taxation should be ‘lawful’, serve a ‘legitimate aim’ and strike a ‘fair balance’ between the general interest and protection of individual rights

   1. The Court of Appeal rules that only in specific circumstances a ‘legitimate expectation’ can constitute a ‘possession’ as meant in Article 1 First Protocol of the ECHR.

   2. However, the expectation that the taxpayer could also rely on the 30% ruling in future years (as per the period mentioned in the 30% ruling), neither constitutes an existing ‘possession’ (as this expectation applies with respect to future (net) income), nor constitutes a ‘legitimate expectation’ which may benefit from Article 1 First Protocol of the ECHR, already because the 30% ruling is issued with an explicit caveat that it may be subject to legislative changes.

   3. This is also not different in light of the fact that in relation to an earlier legislative change - which earlier change shortened the maximum duration of the 30% ruling from 10 to 8 years - the legislator did provide for ‘full’ (instead of only limited) transitional rules.

   4. In general terms, when it comes to taxation, the legislator has a ‘wide margin of appreciation’ which should in principle be respected by the Courts. The legislative change at hand - limiting the duration of the 30% ruling also for existing cases with limited transitional rules - is within the scope of the legislator’s wide margin of appreciation. The legislator’s considerations in parliamentary history cannot be concluded to lack any reasonable grounds. In its ruling the Court of Appeal has taken into consideration that the legislator did not limit the possibility to reimburse extra-territorial costs on a tax-free basis as such. The legislative change focuses only on a limitation of the maximum duration of the 30% ruling, based on which ruling such extra-territorial costs can - in short - by fiction be deemed to amount to 30% of the wage sum.

3. No conflict with the principles of equality and non-discrimination ex Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and Article 26 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (“IVBPR”).

   1. The Court of Appeal rules that no discrimination can exist in case of a change in tax legislation applicable as of a certain date (as in the case at hand), which merely has as result that certain taxpayers can benefit less long from a specific rule or taxbenefit than others in respect of which that rule or tax benefit applied earlier. We assume that in this specific part of the ruling the Court of Appeal is agreeing with the earlier ruling of the Lower Court, i.e. that also the Court of Appeal does not consider it disproportional that the reduction in duration of the 30% ruling increases in proportion to the effective start date of the 30% ruling being closer to the effective date of the new regime (1 January 20219).

28 November - Hearing Complete

Dear UENL Community, 

Yesterday, we had our hearing with the High Court. It lasted slightly less than an hour, where both parties read prepared statements and had time to answer clarifying questions for the judges. At this point, we have no indication on "how it went". We expect to have a ruling within 12 weeks. Once we have that ruling, it will be appealed. Specifically, if we "win", we know the Belastingdienst will appeal. If they "win", we will appeal. The appeal goes to the Supreme Court. On average, that process takes approximately a year for a written decision. In other words, our patience must continue. 

I do not expect any updates for some time, but should something change, I will notify you. 

Lastly, I wanted to let you know that yesterday was Hans' last day with Taxperience. He will still remain a consultant for our case, but Maarten van den Beucken (who has been part of the case for some time) will be our lead litigator. 

We will miss Hans very much - his humour, kindness, and patience most especially.  Maarten knows he has big shoes to fill, and promises to do so. I trust him. 

Warmly, 

Jessica