Almost there…

Do you want to stay informed of the most practical information and answers to your professional questions with news, topics and articles in the field of HRM, Tax and Payroll?

Subscribe to Business Rendement for only € 199 per year, excluding VAT. This offer applies to a business trial subscription, valid until cancellation. The General Terms and Conditions can be found on

Click here and subscribe!

Box 3 slated by the court

The new system for saving and investment taxes is unreasonable and discriminatory, according to the Court of Groningen. But solving it is up to the legislator, not to the court. And so in this case, the tax payer is left empty-handed for now.

The court consulted the legislative history in this case and concluded that the legislator was aware of the fact that returns on investing and on saving were very different. And also that 40% of the taxpayers in box 3 only had savings. To assume then that the assets of all taxpayers are divided between investments and savings in the same way is unreasonable, according to the court.


The tax inspector argued that in this way the system remains simple and the possibilities of shifting assets to reduce taxation are curtailed. But the court found no justification for the group of savers only having to face ‘an unreasonably high tax burden’. The court would not have come to a different conclusion if the box 3 tax rates or exempted capital were different. The problem is the assumed asset mix, which differs too much from reality for too large a group of savers only. The taxpayer in this case was not really helped financially with this judgement. For the court could not remedy ‘the discriminatory nature of the tax’. That is up to legislature. Therefore, the appeals were declared unfounded.

Court of North Netherlands, August 2, 2021, ECLI (abridged): 3208

Share this article on: