Belgian Tax Administration rebuffed: exit “subject-to-tax clause”?

On 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached a remarkable decision in the context of allocation of taxing rights for professional income earned within an international context.

The dispute
In concreto, the case pertained to professional income earned by a professional cyclist. During the period 2007-2009, said cyclist was engaged by a Belgian employer and participated in numerous races abroad. On the basis of articles 17 and 23, §1 a of the relevant double-taxation convention, the income thus earned was taxable abroad and, accordingly, a tax exemption (with reservation as to the progressive tax rate) was requested in the personal tax declaration in Belgium. As the Belgian Tax Administration disallowed such an exemption, the dispute was referred to the courts. In the Court of First Instance and in the Appeals Court, the Administration was rebuffed: given that the cyclist was primarily remunerated by the employer on the basis of his participation in races, the court saw no objection to allocating the taxation rights to the countries where said races were held, based on the number of racing days in which the cyclist had participated abroad.

However, the Belgian Tax Administration was of the opinion that an effective taxability mechanism was needed in the countries where the respective races were conducted in order to qualify for the personal tax exemption in the Belgian declaration.  Specifically, it was argued that income earned for races in the Netherlands was tax exempt in that country pursuant to the Dutch internal tax legislation and, hence, did not qualify for an exemption in Belgium. The Administration therefore took its case to the Court of Cassation but, alas, likewise in vain.  

The “subject to tax – clause”, interpretation according to the Court of Cassation
Article 23 §1 a of the double-taxation convention concluded between Belgian and the Netherlands reads as follows:

“In Belgium, double taxation is being avoided in the following manner:

In case a resident of Belgium receives income other than dividends, interest, or royalties in the meaning of article 12, paragraph 5, or owns items of capital that, pursuant to the provisions of this Convention, are subject to taxation in the Netherlands, Belgium shall deem such income or items of capital tax exempt. However, in order to calculate the amount of tax payable on the remainder of the income or capital of that resident, Belgium shall be entitled to apply the tax rate that would have been applicable if the exempted income or capital had not been so exempted.”


In the combined article-by-article explanation, pertaining to article 21 clarification is given as to when an income component is “taxable”, to wit: in case it is effectively included in the tax basis used to levy the taxes. As such, the Tax Administration contends that the income earned in the Netherlands remains taxable in Belgium in the absence of taxation in the Netherlands.

However, the Court of Cassation does not agree with the Tax Administration. The allocation whereby the taxation rights are being granted to the country based on the number of racing days on which the cyclist participated in races is, in the Court’s opinion, not contrary to the legal provisions obtaining. Furthermore, the Court states that effective taxability is not required in the context of the allocation of the taxation rights of article 17 of the convention (or other allocation rules such as article 15 or 16).

In this context, the Advocate-General further states that an argumentum a contrario is not admissible: in fact, it is not possible to transfer the taxing rights to Belgium on the basis of article 23 of the Convention. Should Belgium wish to tax a component that, on the basis of the allocation rules falls under the competence of the Netherlands but is exempt in that country, the Convention needs to be adapted in order to admit a ‘credit-system’ mechanism.  

The rationale of article 21 of the Convention whereby the non-taxability in the one State results in the other State’s ability to still proceed to levy tax (subject-to-tax clause)  cannot be extended to the other components of the income of which the taxing rights are regulated in the Convention’s other articles. The requirement of effective taxability should be read and interpreted with reservation in the sense of its being aimed at ensuring that an exemption can be obtained for earnings that are not subject to the other allocation rules. The actual allocation of the taxing rights on a given item of income in an earlier article hence is absolute and incontestable and the subject-to-tax clause of article 21 concerns only other income than that discussed in an earlier article.

The ruling of the Court of Cassation may truly be described as ‘revolutionary’, since it is diametrically in opposition to earlier standpoints embraced by the Belgian Tax Administration. The Court clearly holds the opinion that there exists no room for the so-called subject-to-tax clause, which it deems contrary to judicial tenets.

The requirement to register gets a broader scope
More entrepreneurs must register with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE)
Under the aim of creating a more attractive business climate, changes were made to the existing company law. In that context, the legislator has done away with the ‘trader’ concept, replacing it with the umbrella term ‘enterprise. Besides forming the basis for the rules of the Code of Economic Law, the Judicial Code and the Civil Code, the new enterprise concept also has consequences for reg
More specific: matrimonial property law
A new compensation obligation in the legal system
What if a spouse practices his profession in a company whose shares all form part of his separate property? The Act of 22 July 2018 has introduced considerable changes to matrimonial property law. This article addresses a specific addition to that law, namely the possible disadvantage incurred by the matrimonial property when a spouse practices their profession through their own company1. 
Changes in the cary proxy and usufruct
Estate planning: recent developments
Over the last few months, we have regularly reported on the important changes in estate planning and inheritance planning. Below is an update of some of those changes.   The care proxy: secure your estate for later The classic example is a person who, due to a physical or mental limitation (e.g. coma, dementia), is – temporarily or permanently – unable to manage their assets properly.
Happy Brexmas?
How to prepare your company for Brexit?
On 10 December 2018, the British Prime Minister decided to postpone the vote on the Brexit deal in the House of Commons. The risk of a ‘no deal’ disaster scenario is increasing. What are the important dates? On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom formally informed the European Council of its intention to leave the EU (according to the procedure provided in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty). C
A popular control structure
The all-powerful manager of a civil-law partnership: was it always a fiction?
The civil-law partnership has long been a popular control structure among wealth planners. In many cases, donors do not want to give up their assets entirely, and still want to retain some control over what they donate. Definitely in cases of transfers of family companies, the donors (often parents or family members) still want to retain control over the course of the business.  The advant
The tax framework
Company subsidies: exempted or not?
Various subsidies were briefly described in the article by our colleagues from Strategy and Operations. They explained that they can assist you and your company with guidance on subsidies, from A to Z.1 In this context, we would like to discuss the tax framework for subsidies: how are awarded subsidies treated tax-wise within companies? Are these subsidies exempt from corporation tax and, if
Right to deduct VAT possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares
The Ryanair ruling
Right to deduct VAT also possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares, if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that VAT on costs incurred during the purchase of shares may be deductible even if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead. As such, the Court of Justice has upheld the principle that the preparatory t
What are the options?
The deduction for investment: an illustration of the options
The deduction for investment allows companies and natural persons who earn profits or benefits to reduce their taxable profits by placing part of the acquisition or investment value of investments in new tangible and intangible fixed assets. Depending on the size of your business and the nature of your activities, you can generally apply the regular, one-off deduction for investment of 20% (tem
Valuation of usufruct
Now also a witch hunt when usufruct is sold?
In previous editions, we have already written about the valuation of usufruct when purchasing property, but recently there have also been regular reports of checks on the valuation of usufruct when reselling. However, up until now, the case law has followed the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Brief description For several years, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the valuation of usufruc
Vlabel is using conciliatory language
Has the decrease in Flemish sales duty led to an increase in the costs for purchases of usufruct?
The decrease in sales duty: also for split purchase usufruct-bare ownership The recent drop in the rate (to 7.00%) for purchases of family homes comes with a number of conditions. For example, the purchaser must be a natural person. Following some uncertainty, it was subsequently confirmed that, in the event of a split purchase of such a property by a company for the usufruct and the bare owner f

Subscribe to our newsletter