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 arising from being a sole trader.

Discussion of the discrimination between benefits in kind for housing
The courts of appeal of Antwerp and Ghent have already ruled on several occasions that such distinction is not justified and that, consequently, the lower benefit in kind (of the sole trader) must also be applied for limited companies. In concrete terms, this means that a multiplication factor of 1 must be taken into account, not a factor of 3.8. As a result, most benefits in kind suddenly become four times cheaper.

For a long time, the tax authorities stoically remained within the rather destructive case-law, and the number of cases brought before these courts continued to increase. In comparison with other discussions, everyone expected that the legal benefit in kind of sole traders and limited companies would be harmonised by the legislator, but at the level of the highest benefit in kind (factor 3.8). That way, discrimination would also be eliminated and the Treasury would not be disadvantaged. 

Perhaps the tax authorities would leave it at that and give everyone a break?
However, the Minister of Finance recently threw in the towel. Legislative measures were immediately announced, with the understanding that, according to the initial reports, the expected increase to a factor of 3.8 would not happen after all. The media - in the absence of an official position - even alluded to the fact that the benefits in kind might be reduced. The Minister himself referred to 'unrealistic benefits in kind' and the need to make overall reductions following increases under the Di Rupo government.

In practice, an overall reduction to a factor of 1 (which possibly seemed to be on the way following the Minister's first statements) would mean that almost all benefits in kind would be decimated to a quarter of their current value, meaning that in many cases, cupboards in villas would be a benefit in kind, equivalent, as it were, to the rental price of a typical home. Although this would be a welcome change for entrepreneurs and the middle classes, it seems a little too much of a good thing, and therefore unlikely to last long. With such a twist, it is more than likely that this regulation will one day - and probably at lightning speed - end up on the legislative drawing board. There are two disadvantages in this respect:

  • It will give rise to new discussions, bearing in mind that disputes are always detrimental and that this area clearly suffers taxation-wise (partly unjustifiably);
  • Real estate planning is generally planning for the long-term; however, it is made more difficult if it is known in advance that the current regulations are not stable and may therefore change.

Such regulation in fits and starts, like the fickle regulation relating to car taxation, is therefore not really the best display of professional and stable regulation. 

Here we go again
In the media (E. Cleeren, “Kraai niet te snel victorie over villa op kosten van de zaak”, De Tijd 31 March 2018, p. 33-34) it was reported that the Minister now appears to be taking action. More specifically, according to the Minister, this issue should be examined by his administration, presumably because of the same concerns as mentioned above. Is this missed tax reduction, by definition, a bad thing for entrepreneurs? Depending on the outcome, this does not seem to be the case, as overtly advantageous rates would only be the prelude to more debate and uncertainty. We can cautiously state that it is already rather positive that the debate will be settled before rather than after the facts.

What can taxpayers expect?

A first idea is that the current system of 'cadastral incomes' as a basis for benefits in kind is completely outdated. Indeed, the benefits in kind differ too much from one another, meaning that comparable properties may still have a different cadastral income, depending on region, age, etc. Re-estimating all cadastral income is easier said than done. First of all, a site visit would be required for all the plots in the country, and there are many of them. However, this exercise would take on almost mythical proportions, and as such would only appear to be possible in theory. Moreover, the effect of a re-estimation is also politically charged, as everyone can be affected. For example, doubling a cadastral income also means doubling property tax, which could be too expensive for the owner of a small terraced home, for example. The emotion surrounding the new 'klein beschrijf' rules already shows how heavy this weighs in electoral terms. In addition, as regards 'klein beschrijf', prospective buyers, after creating their account, can still cancel the purchase. With property tax, the taxpayer is already the owner of the property, and usually has little or no fall-back options. Such measures, especially just before elections, are not therefore a realistic possibility in the short term. Of course, the decision could also be postponed until after the elections to some extent. Given the case law, the question is whether people can wait that long.

A second idea could be to completely separate the system from cadastral incomes, to continue to focus purely on the benefit in kind, without other collateral damage. For example, one option could be to use the real rental value. However, this is even more radical in technical terms, and could result in even more discussion (what is the real rental value?). In the short term then, it is probably not on the way, but we should not rule out working towards this option in the longer term.

The only alternative available in the short term is probably to tweak the existing cadastral income-based formula. A levelling-off to factor 3.8 across the board had been expected for a long time, but this now no longer seems to be the case in light of the Minister's statements. A general recourse to a factor of 1 would probably also be too much of a good thing, as explained above. A return to a factor of 2, the system prior to Di Rupo, may be the most realistic and also the most politically meaningful signal. In any case, it remains to be seen what the final verdict will be. 

How can we avoid a 'crash and burn' scenario?
The guiding principle for future projects is consequently the following:

  • Wait and see what the official position is;
  • Don't hope for a very low benefit in kind ('factor of 1' instead of 3.8);
  • In the long run, prepare for a complete reform of the benefit in kind (e.g. based on real rental value).

In the meantime, the focus will probably remain on the problem of the deduction for the associated costs, the so-called remuneration theory. Indeed, this is much easier for the tax authorities, as it is more of a legal problem, and much less factual or large-scale. Two observations can be made from the point of view of taxpayers:

  • First, make a good analysis of a case, in which it is examined whether this remuneration theory is applicable at all; if so, then the case must be proactively substantiated to avoid ending up in the emotional mincer of recent case law;
  • Emotionally and conceptually, non-deductibility is difficult for taxpayers to swallow, while there is more to gain in financial and analytical terms with non-deductible costs, especially in view of the reduction in corporate tax rates, if these are linked to a low benefit in kind.

In any case, we should keep a sufficiently broad view and not focus on the benefit in kind alone. After all, real estate planning and taxation are in a maturing process, as evidenced by the evolution in the valuation of usufruct, among other things. It is the end of an era in which everyone can come up with standard solutions for the situation in each individual and unique case. Many questions need to be answered, including:

  • what interest does the company have in the transaction?;
  • why opt for a right of usufruct, long-term lease, etc., instead of an alternative?;
  • Has my right in rem been correctly evaluated?
    1. Be careful with the parameters: a clear shift in real estate is noticeable (sometimes very local and segment-related) meaning that we should guard against making too simplistic generalisations or too simple parameters;
    2. the issue of the valuation method is also a point in itself;
  • can the tax deduction be justified in theory and, consequently, how can the case best be substantiated in practice?;
  • How can work fit into private use? New ideas are being created and are needed to plan for the future (survival of the fittest).

Focusing only on the evolution of the benefit in kind results in an overly narrow field of vision. Indeed, any reasoning is then far too short-term, and omits most of the key points. As such, a healthy commercial approach, accompanied by extensive technical knowledge, is more than ever an absolute necessity for preventing problems rather than curing them.

Legally most correct solution
Successive usufruct: The Flemish Tax Office (Vlabel) confirms the method of levying the registration duties
On 10 December 2018, a remarkable position was published on the Vlabel website (Position no 18083 of 26 November 2018). The real estate tax system is becoming more and more sophisticated with more (tax) advantages. The question must therefore be asked whether the well-known "simple" usufruct will not be partially replaced by transactions with a double or successive usufruct. In the area of registr
From 1 January 2019
New Flemish Lease Decree
On 24 October 2018, the Flemish Parliament approved the new Flemish Lease Decree. In our newsletter of 26 October 2017, we already hinted at the changes that this new decree will bring about. One of the most important changes remains the decree's broad scope. On the one hand, extensive regulations are provided for the rental of a house intended as a main residence. What is new here is that the ter
Confirmed in writing to our office
Confirmed: both usufructuary and bare owner are to be included in the UBO register
The Belgian Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) register went live on 31 October 2018. On the basis of the legal texts and the explanatory notes, as ultimate beneficiary/ies of companies, the natural person(s) who directly or indirectly hold(s) a sufficient percentage of the voting rights or of the ownership interest in this company must first be notified. A holding of at least 25% is an indication of
The advantage is a taxable benefit
Fiches and withholding tax on benefits granted by foreign companies
Should payments received from a foreign company be subject to withholding tax and should this be declared on a fiche? At the moment, the answer to this question is negative in most situations, but this is set to change. A new draft law dated 18 December 2018 provides for the introduction of a tax fiction that requires the (Belgian) employer of the beneficiary employee not only to withhold withh
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

Subscribe to our newsletter