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.

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
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
A full overview
Your mortgage in the personal income tax return assessment year 2018
The new tax return form for personal income for tax assessment year 2018 has recently been published, so it is high time to examine how you can correctly fill in your mortgage in your personal income tax return. The biggest change in 2017 occurred in the housing taxation system of the Brussels-Capital Region. The other regions have all maintained a status quo compared to last year. A full overview

Subscribe to our newsletter