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.

Property planning finds itself in turbulent waters
Valuation of a usufruct: in complete (r)evolution?
Much has been said and written in the past few years about the valuation of a usufruct and where the fiscal shoe pinches. An overview of valuation problems, current trends and a look at future property planning is provided below. Valuation of a usufruct Valuation of a usufruct: a changing world Usufruct is one of the oldest property rights known and was already applied in Roman times. Usufr
This difference in treatment needs to be corrected
Benefit in kind on immovable property: tax authority abides by the court ruling (for now)
The Federal Public Service Finance published Circular 2018/C/57 on 15 May 2018 on the flat-rate valuation of the benefit in kind for providing an immovable property or a part of an immovable property free of charge to employees or managers. The flat-rate estimate of these benefits is laid down by the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 (RD/BITC 92). The Courts of Appeal of Ghent and
The 'use and enjoyment" rules explained
Freight transport and closely associated services: new rules clarified in a circular
On 31 October 2017, (previous) Royal Decree No 57, which deals with the freight transport services Department and related services, was replaced by a new RD which came into force on 23 November 2017. It clarifies the former RD in part while introducing a new rule. In order to clarify and discuss the (new) rules, the tax authorities published an administrative circular in this regard on 31 May 2018
Guidelines
Substantial changes in the obligations for partnerships
The Company Law Reform, published on 27 April 2018, is making a number of changes in the Companies Code and the Code of Economic Law. These new regulations will enter into force on 1 November 2018. A few rules will also change for partnerships. Although some clarifications will still be published, we would already like to provide the following guidelines. Changes in the Companies Code A first
Quickly detect system risks
Without a Legal Entity Identifier your company will not be trading on the stock market in 2018
  As from 3 January 2018, every legal entity that buys or sells financial instruments must have a Legal Entity Identifier or LEI. Legal Entity Identifier A LEI is a 20-digit alpha-numeric code enabling quick identification of legal entities that are active on the (international or local) financial markets. The LEI enables regulators to quickly detect system risks. Registrati
A summary of the main points
Immovable property leases to include VAT
  Although currently there is just a draft bill on this issue, which obviously can be subject to change in the meantime, we would like to summarize the main points of the upcoming revolution in the VAT landscape: immovable property leases may become subject to VAT. History Until recently, immovable property leases have – in principle – been exempt from VAT (section 44, paragr
UBO = Ultimate Beneficial Owner
The UBO register: new disclosure requirements planned for your company’s administrative body
As a result of the insertion of sections 14(1) and 14(2) into the Belgian Companies Code all companies must in the future obtain adequate, accurate and current information about their ‘ultimate beneficial owners’ (UBOs) and record the data in the new ‘UBO Register’, a central register containing data about companies and the natural persons behind them. In view of the unwavering atte
Introduction of the matrimonial property law
Is it the end of the final set-off clause or is it getting new life?
  Much has been said about the final set-off clause in recent years. After the Court of Cassation in 2017 ruled in favour of the tax payer that the claim was deductible in the scope of the payable succession duties, the Flemish regulator decided to come to the aid of the tax authorities by changing the law. What is a final set-off clause and how does it work? Many spouses married un
Also the unequal treatment gets reviewed
Benefit in kind for housing: how to anticipate the higher or lower scenario?
Discrimination as regards the benefit in kind for housing has been highlighted on several occasions. Specifically, it relates to the unequal treatment of the same benefits, whether in terms of provision by a sole trader or provision by a legal person. In the most common cases, the benefit arising from being a limited company is almost four times more expensive taxation-wise than the benefit arisin
To reduce the financial burden
Start-up reduction on social security contributions for self-employed persons
The start-up reduction was part of the 'Summer agreement' and took effect on 1 April 2018. With this initiative, the government intends to reduce the financial burden of self-employed persons in start-ups, who often have low incomes at the start of their activity, thereby stimulating entrepreneurship.  Which self-employed persons are eligible?  The reduction measure applies to all se

Subscribe to our newsletter