Additional levy high income remains intact – Financieele Dagblad

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands is the highest court in the Netherlands in the field of civil, criminal and tax right in The Hague. (Photo: HH)

The crisis levy the tax authorities in 2013 and 2014 is levied on wage income above € 150,000, is preserved. The government has violated no rules when it decided retroactively imposing an additional tax of 16% on the earnings above half tonnes, the Supreme Court ruled

The decision of the Higher Council published this Friday and differs from the opinion of the Advocate General. The advisor of the Council considered the charge partially illegal. If the Supreme Court had followed the Opinion of the Advocate General, would the government tens if not hundreds of millions of euros have been able to charge.

Test Case

The Supreme Court has ruled in two lawsuits against the crisis levy, one of 2013 and the other, a test case over 2014. Employers who paid the crisis levy, started a large number of legal proceedings against the temporary levy was imposed in both years on income over € 150,000 in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

Unlike the Advocate General, the Supreme Court let the budget problems of the government outweigh legitimate expectations of employers with regard to the pay payroll taxes. The urgency to reduce the public deficit was so big that these expectations could be affected, the court ruled.

The latter occurred twice. On May 25, 2012, when the crisis tax was announced as part of the Spring Agreement, which was concluded after the fall of the first Rutte, and on Budget Day 2013, when the second Rutte temporary duty extended for a year. The Advocate General stated earlier that as far as income before those dates in above-half tonnes, about this part no crisis levy should be imposed.

Modest yield

The surprise Peter Kavelaars and he feels it is wrong that the Supreme Court public interest so heavily weigh late that the charge was authorized retroactively. Kavelaars is professor of economics and taxation linked to consultancy Deloitte. In the latter capacity he is involved in the proceedings against the levy in 2013. The surprise was all the greater because the proceeds of the crisis levy is relatively modest, especially in light of the now reasonably restored public finances.

The final appellate body is the European Court of Human Rights. Tax consultant Arjo van Eijsden EY eight real chance that he on behalf of one or more of the clients whom he assists in five test cases, switching to this Court and the Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion in their affairs. The latter is evident

indigestible

Volgens Van Eijsden clear from previous judgments of the ECHR that taxation is permitted retroactively, but not if it is done solely for budgetary reasons. That was when the crisis levy were the case, says the consultant.

The retroactivity and the extension of the “one-off” levy moreover so unpalatable for the more than one hundred employers who have presented themselves at EY, they will want to fight this to the highest authority of Eijsden think.

Kavelaars expects most held proceedings against the crisis levy will be withdrawn. The Supreme Court leaves one possibility open to appeal, namely when the charge has led to an individual and excessive burden. That appeal was rejected visit earlier in the test case by the Court, the Court ruled. In the other case appeal this objection was not raised.