Besluit tot aanpassing van de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen in verband met aftrek negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning

Staatssecretaris Weekers van Financiën heeft een besluit gepubliceerd tot aanpassing van de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen in verband met de aftrek van negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning. Dit besluit was op 23 februari 2012 al aangekondigd.

De keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen biedt buitenlandse belastingplichtigen de mogelijkheid te worden behandeld als binnenlandse belastingplichtige (artikel 2.5 Wet IB 2001). Een keuze voor die regeling heeft tot gevolg dat buitenlandse belastingplichtigen hun wereldinkomen moeten opgeven voor de belastingheffing in Nederland. Bij de opgave van het inkomen uit werk en woning (box 1) worden de per saldo negatieve inkomsten uit de in het woonland gelegen eigen woning in mindering gebracht. Deze negatieve inkomsten uit de buitenlandse eigen woning kunnen op grond van de huidige regeling worden teruggenomen als er (in een toekomstig jaar per saldo) sprake is van positieve 'buitenlandse' inkomsten. Voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen van wie het inkomen voor 90% of meer in Nederland is belast, is die terugname van de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning, mede in verband met de uitspraak van Hof Den Bosch van 25 november 2011, nr. 11/340, LJN: BV7552, in strijd met het EU-recht. Vooruitlopend op aanpassing van de wetgeving met betrekking tot de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen keurt de staatssecretaris goed dat bij buitenlandse belastingplichtigen van wie het inkomen voor 90% of meer in Nederland is belast en bij wie op grond van de keuzeregeling de negatieve inkomsten uit de buitenlandse eigen woning in mindering op het inkomen uit werk en woning zijn gekomen, deze negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning niet (in enig jaar) worden teruggenomen.

In het besluit gaat Weekers ook in op de toekomst van de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen. Hij laat weten het beroep in cassatie tegen de uitspraak van Hof Den Bosch in te trekken. Een definitieve beslissing over de toekomst van de keuzeregeling is aan de orde bij het wetsvoorstel waarin de herziening van artikel 2.5 Wet IB 2001 wordt opgenomen. Bij dat voorstel zullen alle elementen van de keuzeregeling opnieuw worden bezien, aldus Weekers.

Dit besluit treedt in werking met ingang van 15 juni 2012 en werkt terug tot en met 25 november 2011 (datum uitspraak Hof Den Bosch).

Volledige tekst:

Inkomstenbelasting. Keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen; inhaal - en terugnameregeling bij negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning

Directoraat-generaal Belastingdienst, Cluster Fiscaliteit

Besluit van 2 juni 2012, nr. DGB 2012/2190M.

De staatssecretaris van Financiën heeft het volgende besloten.

In dit besluit is een maatregel getroffen tot aanpassing van de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen in verband met de aftrek van negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning.

1. Inleiding

De keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen biedt buitenlandse belastingplichtigen de mogelijkheid te worden behandeld als binnenlandse belastingplichtige (artikel 2.5 van de Wet inkomstenbelasting 2001). Een keuze voor die regeling heeft tot gevolg dat buitenlandse belastingplichtigen hun wereldinkomen moeten opgeven voor de belastingheffing in Nederland. Bij de opgave van het inkomen uit werk en woning (box 1) worden de per saldo negatieve inkomsten uit de in het woonland gelegen eigen woning in mindering gebracht. Deze negatieve inkomsten uit de buitenlandse eigen woning kunnen op grond van de huidige regeling worden teruggenomen als er (in een toekomstig jaar per saldo) sprake is van positieve ‘buitenlandse’ inkomsten. Voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen van wie het inkomen voor 90% of meer in Nederland is belast, acht ik die terugname van de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning, mede in verband met de uitspraak van Hof Den Bosch van 25 november 2011, nr. 11/00340, LJN: BV7552, in strijd met het EU-recht. In dit besluit tref ik om die reden een maatregel tot aanpassing van de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen.

2. Maatregel tot aanpassing van de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen

Ik keur, vooruitlopend op aanpassing van de wetgeving met betrekking tot de keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen, het volgende goed.

Goedkeuring

Bij buitenlandse belastingplichtigen van wie het inkomen voor 90% of meer in Nederland is belast en bij wie op grond van de keuzeregeling de negatieve inkomsten uit de buitenlandse eigen woning in mindering op het inkomen uit werk en woning zijn gekomen, worden deze negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning niet (in enig jaar) teruggenomen.

Deze goedkeuring heeft derhalve betrekking op de toepassing van artikel 3, tweede lid, van het Uitvoeringsbesluit inkomstenbelasting 2001 (vermindering vanwege keuzerecht), op de toepassing van artikel 2.5, derde lid, Wet IB 2001, als niet langer wordt gekozen voor de keuzeregeling (terugnameregeling) en op de toepassing van artikel 6 Uitvoeringsbesluit inkomstenbelasting 2001 (inhaalregeling).

De goedkeuring vindt toepassing op buitenlandse belastingplichtigen die inwoner zijn van een lidstaat van de Europese Unie of van IJsland, Noorwegen en Liechtenstein (EER-staten). Om de mogelijkheid van dubbele aftrek te voorkomen, geldt de goedkeuring alleen voor zover de belastingplichtige of zijn fiscale partner in het woonland geen recht heeft op hypotheekrenteaftrek.

Of is voldaan aan de 90%-eis wordt als volgt vastgesteld. Het verzamelinkomen van de belastingplichtige, zoals dit blijkt uit de opgave op grond van de keuzeregeling van artikel 2.5 Wet IB 2001, moet op jaarbasis voor 90% of meer in Nederland zijn belast. In geval van fiscaal partnerschap, de partner moet dan ook hebben gekozen voor de keuzeregeling, wordt hierbij uitgegaan van het gezamenlijke bedrag van de verzamelinkomens van de belastingplichtige en zijn partner. Ten overvloede merk ik op dat als de partner niet voor de keuzeregeling heeft gekozen, de belastingplichtige alleen zijn eigen deel van de hypotheekrenteaftrek kan opvoeren.

Bij het bepalen van de 90%-grens worden de inkomsten en aftrek die samenhangen met de eigen woning uit de breuk geëlimineerd. Dit om te voorkomen dat dit inkomen de beoordeling van de 90%-grens beïnvloedt. Teller en noemer zijn dan als volgt:

Teller = inkomen ingevolge artikel 7.1 Wet IB 2001 voor zover dat aan Nederland ter heffing is toegewezen, verminderd met de negatieve uitgaven voor inkomensvoorzieningen en de negatieve persoonsgebonden aftrek.

Noemer = verzamelinkomen ingevolge artikel 2.18 Wet IB 2001, verminderd met de negatieve uitgaven voor inkomensvoorzieningen, de negatieve persoonsgebonden aftrek en de belastbare inkomsten uit eigen woning, en vermeerderd met de negatieve belastbare inkomsten uit eigen woning, de uitgaven voor inkomensvoorzieningen, de persoonsgebonden aftrek en de aftrek wegens geen of geringe eigenwoningschuld, zoals berekend vanwege de keuze voor behandeling als binnenlandse belastingplichtige. Voor het bepalen van de noemer moet bij het belastbare inkomen uit sparen en beleggen worden afgezien van het in mindering brengen van het heffingvrij vermogen.

3. Effectuering van de maatregel

Dit besluit heeft allereerst gevolgen voor de saldering (in het jaar zelf) van de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning met ander ‘niet of tegen een beperkt tarief in Nederland te belasten inkomensbestanddelen van het noemerinkomen’, als bedoeld in artikel 3, tweede lid, van het Uitvoeringsbesluit inkomstenbelasting 2001. Als is voldaan aan de 90%-eis vindt deze saldering, op verzoek van de belastingplichtige, niet meer plaats voor aanslagen die op de datum van dit besluit nog niet onherroepelijk vaststaan. Bij aangiften die nog moeten worden ingediend, kan bij het invullen van de aangifte met dit besluit rekening worden gehouden.

Verder heeft dit besluit gevolgen voor de terugnameregeling van artikel 2.5, derde lid, Wet IB 2001 of de inhaalregeling van artikel 6 Uitvoeringsbesluit inkomstenbelasting 2001. Deze laatste regelingen zijn aan de orde als de buitenlandse belastingplichtige niet langer meer kiest voor de keuzeregeling of als hij nog wel kiest en hij inkomsten heeft die in zijn woonland zijn belast. De Belastingdienst zal de terugname- en inhaalregeling niet langer toepassen voor zover deze regelingen zijn opgekomen vanwege de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning, mits in voorafgaande belastingjaren is voldaan aan de hiervoor genoemde 90%-eis. Als in voorafgaande belastingjaren niet is voldaan aan de 90%-eis blijft de terugname- en inhaalregeling in verband met de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning wel van toepassing. Als iemand bij de toepassing van de terugname- of inhaalregeling zowel belastingjaren heeft waarin wel en niet is voldaan aan de 90%-eis, moet derhalve onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen de jaren ter zake waarvan de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning kunnen worden teruggenomen (niet voldaan aan de 90%-eis) en de jaren ter zake waarvan de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning niet kunnen worden teruggenomen (wel voldaan aan de 90%-eis. Op aanslagen die op de datum van dit besluit al onherroepelijk vaststaan wordt niet teruggekomen bij reeds toegepaste terugname- en inhaalregelingen.

4. Toekomst keuzeregeling voor buitenlandse belastingplichtigen

Ik heb besloten om het beroep in cassatie tegen de hiervoor vermelde uitspraak van Hof Den Bosch van 25 november 2011, nr. 11/00341, in te trekken. Hof Den Bosch verwierp in zijn uitspraak het betoog van de inspecteur dat de negatieve inkomsten uit eigen woning van een buitenlandse belastingplichtige alleen in mindering kunnen komen op het belastbare inkomen uit werk en woning in Nederland als de belastingplichtige heeft geopteerd voor behandeling als binnenlandse belastingplichtige ingevolge artikel 2.5 Wet IB 2001. Het Hof verwees daarbij naar het arrest Gielen (HvJ EU 18 maart 2010, C-440/08, BNB 2010/179). Bij het onderschrift hierop merk ik op dat uit het arrest Gielen mijns inziens niet volgt dat het moeten kiezen voor behandeling als binnenlandse belastingplichtige ingevolge een wettelijke keuzeregeling als zodanig strijdig is met het EU-recht. Wel kan ik mij in het oordeel van het Hof vinden vanwege de mogelijke strijdigheid van de terugname- en inhaalregeling met het EU-recht. Door het wegnemen van de strijdige elementen acht ik het op dit moment als tijdelijke maatregel verdedigbaar dat belastingplichtigen die aan de 90%-eis voldoen gebruik moeten maken van de keuzeregeling. Via de keuzeregeling verschaft de belastingplichtige duidelijkheid over het wereldinkomen naar Nederlandse fiscale maatstaven, waarmee de Belastingdienst kan bepalen of is voldaan aan de 90%-eis. Bovendien volgt uit de keuzeregeling de verplichting om het zogenoemde ‘niet-Nederlandse’ inkomen op te geven, zodat daarmee rekening kan worden gehouden voor de progressie van de belastingtarieven. Een definitieve beslissing over de toekomst van de keuzeregeling is aan de orde bij het wetsvoorstel waarin de herziening van artikel 2.5 Wet IB 2001 wordt opgenomen. Bij dat voorstel zullen alle elementen van de keuzeregeling opnieuw worden bezien.

5. Inwerkingtreding

Dit besluit treedt in werking met ingang van de dag na de datum van uitgifte van de Staatscourant waarin het wordt geplaatst en werkt terug tot en met 25 november 2011 (datum uitspraak Hof Den Bosch).
Dit besluit wordt in de Staatscourant gepubliceerd.
Den Haag, 2 juni 2012
de staatssecretaris van Financiën
mr. drs. F.F.H. Weekers.

Rules governing incorporation of a limited company in the Netherlands simplified from 1 October 2012

Entrepreneurs who want to do business in the Netherlands often opt for a limited company, officially called a private limited liability company or in Dutch "besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid, abbreviated to "B.V.”. The fact that the company involves limited liability for the shareholders is one of the main reasons why this type of legal entity is popular. However, the rules governing the incorporation and the ongoing business were always very strict. There were several barriers which had to be overcome before a company could be incorporated. Besides that EU legislation made it possible to use foreign enitities, which were set up in another EU country, to do business in the Netherlands whereby the Dutch incorporation rules could be avoided.

On 15 December 2009, the bill for the Act on the Simplification and Flexibilisation of the B.V. (the "Wet vereenvoudiging en flexibilisering van het bv-recht”, also referred to as the "Flex Act") was passed by the lower chamber of the Dutch Parliament. The bill, which was first submitted on 31 May 2007, has (finally) been approved by the upper chamber on 31 June 2012. The Flex Act will enter into force on 1 October 2012.

Easier incorporation

The requirement of a minimum share capital of € 18.000,- will be abolished. This means that any capital amount is possible, even 1 Eurocent. The mandatory capital contribution statements drawn up by the bank (cash contributions) will disappear as well. This will speed up the establishment of the company since it is no longer required that a bank account is opened before the limited company can be set up. The same applies to the mandatory audit in case of a contribution in kind. It will also become possible for the B.V. to offer financial assistance to third parties for the purchase of shares in the company’s own capital.

Better protection of creditors

An important reason to abolish the € 18,000 minimum capital is that this amount is, in many cases, not related to the size of the company’s business in terms of its turnover and balance sheets, and often bears no relevance when it comes to creditor protection. The focus will therefore be changed to the payment of dividend to shareholders. In order to protect creditors, the B.V. will not be entitled to pay dividends if it is clear that the B.V. will not be able to continue paying its debts after the dividend has been paid. Directors and shareholders that have acted negligently can be held liable in person. This will be monitored for a period of a year after payment of the dividend.

More freedom of organization and decision-making

Companies will be given more freedom with regard to the organization of their structure. There are much more possibilities to derogate from the law in the articles of associations. It will for example be possible to issue shares without voting rights or shares that do not entitle the holder to any profit. The articles can also determine that each shareholder may appoint a director. It will be easier to pass resolutions without a meeting being held and it will be possible to hold shareholder meetings outside The Netherlands.

Abolishment of restriction of share transfers

The current law governing B.V.'s provides for mandatory restrictions on the transfer of shares in a B.V. These restrictions safeguard the private character of the B.V. One of these rules is that a shareholder who intends to sell his shares first has to offer his shares to the other shareholders. Under the Flex Act, the share transfer restrictions will no longer be mandatory. The transferability of shares may be free or can for example be entirely excluded in the articles of association for a specific period of time.

Conclusion - questions

The overall point of view is that the legislative changes form a solid basis for a more flexible BV and, as a result, the BV shall have no difficulty competing with any comparable foreign flexible entity. Above the most important changes have been mentioned, but there are more changes which can benefit you or your company too. If you have any questions about (the incorporation of) a B.V. in The Netherlands, do not hesitate to contact us. We can also review your current articles of association and inform you where changes can be made with respect to the new rules.

The unstoppable tax collector - mail returns undelivered

Once again I experienced today what happens if something goes wrong, nobody does anything and the computersystem at the tax authorities continues spitting out tax claims and warnings.

In this case our client temporary left the Netherlands to work in another country. A country which unfortunately doesn't have a well organized post system like we have in the Netherlands. After his departure we filed the proper tax return. The tax authorities automatically processed the tax return and issued a tax assessment, unfortunately forgetting the requested exemption for income earned abroad. The applicable tax treaty, based on the standard OECD tax treaty, states that income from employment is taxed in the country in which the work is done. The work is done in the other country giving this country the right to tax the related income and therefore the Netherlands should exempt this income (which the tax authorities also confirmed today when we called them and confronted them with the filed tax return). But as said, this exemption was overseen by them at the time, which unfortunately often happens during the digital process, and so a tax assessment was issued claiming an additional amount from our client with regards to the foreign income.

It took this tax assessment weeks to arrive at the place of destiny, but unfortunately it was not delivered to our client but instead returned to the tax authorities with the comment that it could not be delivered. So anybody could see that our client did not receive the envelope and therefore did not read the contents. Unfortunately that is not what the tax authorities thought. Or they may have thought that but didn't take the right measures. Because in the mean time the computer system continued to spit out reminders, warnings and eventually the famous last notice on behalf of the Dutch queen. They all remained unpaid so the tax authorities started withholding money from other sources.

That was the moment our client found out and we heard about it for the first time. Just wish we would have received the requested digital copy of the tax assessment at the beginning, which didn't happen either. Now we have to send several requests to the tax authorities to adjust the tax assessment, stop the withholding of money and to pay back whatever has been withheld already.

The tax return contained the unique ID every registered tax advisor has. This way the tax authorities can see which advisor has filed the tax return. This means that the tax authorities could have picked up the phone when they got the tax assessment back undelivered to ask us if we knew how to reach our client. This way the unnecessary reminders, which nobody would see anyway, could have been prevented. One phone call could have saved a lot of work. But that didn't happen. My advise to the tax authorities: if you notice something strange just call.

Also: if you (being the tax authorities) receive a tax assessment back stating that it was not delivered you know that it won't be paid and that the tax payer will not be able to object against it within the time limit of 6 weeks. Stop the collection procedure at that moment till you have the proper address details. It would have been very unpleasant for our client to come home again from a year of hard work outside the Netherlands to find his house without television and furniture because the tax authorities sold it due to unpaid tax claims which never reached him (and were wrong too!).

The Court of Justice already decided several times that the tax authorities must prove, in case of a dispute, that the tax assessment actually reached the tax payer (timely). In this case it is clear that the tax assessment never reached the tax payer. Doing nothing is then the wrong option, only leading to much more work.

Well, the letters of objection and requests have been filed today. Let's see how long it will take the tax authorities to change it back to how it should have been done from the beginning.

Once the online portal for tax payers will be available "everybody" should be able to check the status of his/her own tax return online. If this includes confirmations of updates by email the above problem should not occur again. Why "everybody"? Because I expect that the portal will only be available to people with a DigiD and non-residents do not have a DigiD (unless they got one earlier during a resident period which is still valid).

Changes 30% ruling adjusted by Lower House

#30% ruling less adjusted, lower salary requirement.

On November 17 the Lower House voted about the proposed changes in the 30% ruling. As stated in previous postings I expressed my concerns about these changes. Good news is now that the biggest change, the salary requirement, is revised as such that much less expats will lose or will be excluded from the ruling.

What were the original proposed changes?

• A minimum salary requirement of € 50,000 per year (excluding the 30% allowance) will be introduced. This means that the gross salary would be € 72,000. This requirement should replace the education and work experience check.
• Incoming employees must have stayed outside the Netherlands in a period of 25 years before arrival in the Netherlands. This was 10 years.
• Incoming employees must have lived more than 150 km from Dutch border before the work in the Netherlands commences.

In close contact with politics, together with expat centers and international businesses and through media exposure Expatax has repeatedly expressed our concerns about the consequences the changes could have for the Dutch economy. Especially the required minimum salary, in practice higher than the required salary for the knowledge migrant ruling, would exclude thousands of expats from the ruling,  possibly leading to the consequence that international companies would leave the Netherlands. This could cause more economical damage than what would be saved with reducing the claim on the ruling.


Politicians were not deaf for our pleads. Amendments were proposed and some of them have been accepted. Lower House has voted and the following changes are approved.

Which changes have been approved by the Lower House?

The minimum salary will be adjusted in line with the knowledge migrant ruling. This means that the salary required will be reduced to € 35,000. Including the 30% allowance the gross salary should than be € 50,000. Scientists and researchers working at universities and knowledge organizations will be exempted from the salary requirement. For young masters below the age of 30 the salary requirement will be € 26,000.

To be able to financially support this adjustment the maximum term of the 30% ruling will be reduced from 10 to 8 years. This adjustment will only affect the new applications. Knowing that the 30% ruling was introduced to cover the extra territorial costs related to a temporary stay in the Netherlands this adjustment seems fair. Countries around us use an average maximum term of 6 years, so the Netherlands are still more generous.

The proposed changes concerning the 150 km distance from Dutch border and the increase in length of the stay outside the Netherlands from 10 to 25 years have been approved. Additional regulations are created to prevent abuse. I still have doubts about the distance requirement which could work out very unfair in specific situations, but that is something which must be worked out in the jurisdiction.

Additional comments have been made:

• The text of the ruling will be adjusted as such that in case of change of employer it is relevant that an employment contract is signed within 3 months after the employee left the previous employer. Currently the ruling states that the work activities must be started within 3 months. The Supreme Court already ruled in the past that the idea behind the ruling is that a new job must be found within 3 months even though the work starts later than 3 months. So with this adjustment the text will be more in line with this decision from the Supreme Court. 
• The ruling should stop when the work activities end. Currently the ruling is also applicable on for example options which are paid out within the maximum term of 10 years but at a time when the employee already left the company. The Supreme Court is currently dealing with a similar case, we are waiting for the outcome. 
• Currently the ruling is guaranteed for the first 5 years of the employment contract. This will no longer be applicable from January 1, 2012 for new applications. From that date the ruling will be ended from the moment that the requirements are not met anymore. 

Transitional regulation

As mentioned in previous blogs the changes will not immediately affect the current granted rulings. The security of the first 5 years period will remain applicable for rulings which are granted with a start date before January 1, 2012. So if an employee has the ruling already for more than 5 years on January 1, 2012 he will fall under the old rules as long as he doesn't change employer. If the period ends after January 1, 2012 the salary requirement becomes applicable and also the distance requirement. The changed requirement concerning the period of previous stay will only affect new applications.

Conclusion

So determine whether the current salary is high enough, whether the transitional regulation is applicable and what needs to be done with regards to employees who lived within 150 km of the Dutch border when the work in the Netherlands started less than 5 years ago.

The Upper House also has to vote about the changes, but I don't expect that anything further will change. 

Still a lot to think about. Expatax can of course assist you. Expatax has extensive experience with the 30% ruling and assists many international companies with their payroll administration in the Netherlands. If you have any questions please check our Knowledge Base on www.expatax.nl/faq through which you can also contact me. 

Should the 30% ruling only remain for foreign CEO's?

@FransWeekers: "I do not want a salary ceiling for the #30% ruling because that would drive the head offices of multinationals out of the Netherlands".

Now I have lost it...

Let's go back to what he previously said.

"I do not want that a person who is living within 150 km's of the Dutch border will get the 30% ruling because this person will not have extra territorial expenses. The reimbursement of extra territorial expenses is the reason why the 30% ruling was created".

Well, he has a point there. No extra territorial expenses, means no reimbursement, fair enough. The changes he proposed are not the right changes though in my opinion but I have already made my point about this in earlier blogs.

So he said, the 30% ruling is granted so that the extra territorial expenses can be reimbursed. We do require a minimum salary, but not a maximum salary. But if the reason behind the 30% ruling is to cover the extra territorial expenses, why would that reason not be applicable in the case of a CEO? Of course a CEO has extra territorial expenses too. But let's say that the CEO receives a salary of
€ 2.000.000. He would then receive a tax free allowance of € 600.000. As if a CEO would have twenty times higher extra territorial costs than an expat with a salary of € 100.000. Will a CEO visit his family more often than a manager? Will this CEO need to live in a property with a monthly rent of
€ 40.000? I doubt it.

With the 150 km requirement the State Secretary said that it has a certain roughness in it, which means that it can exclude people from the 30% ruling which would otherwise have gotten it. What is the difference between 150 and 148 km, especially if the person living 148 km from the border is working 350 km away from home? Why not look at the distance between home and work instead of the distance from the Dutch border? Too bad, that is just the roughness in the figure of 150. The same roughness sees on the percentage of the ruling. It used to be 35% but in 2001 it was reduced to 30% due to the reduction of the tax rates in 2001. 30% is also a rough figure. If it is not enough the employer is allowed to reimburse the real expenses instead. But if it is too high nothing is done. That is the roughness, which must be there to prevent that everybody still has to proof their real expenses. But that doesn't mean it will always be fair. Reasonable costs do not increase with salary.

Money needs to be saved now due to the economic crisis. That is fair enough. Everybody has to help fighting the crisis. But it looks now as if the knowledge migrant with a salary of € 60,000 per year has too pay because he will lose the 30% ruling, but the CEO with a salary of € 2.000.0000 won't notice anything.

The State Secretary uses the same argument which was used to defend the bonus culture within multinationals. In the mean time measurements have been taken to prevent high bonuses. By using the same argument again with respect to the 30% ruling the idea is given that nothing has been learnt.

One other comment. One of the reasons the discussion started was due to the fact that two board members of Philips with the Dutch nationality have the 30% ruling. The previous CEO of Philips had the Dutch nationality. Weekers does not want to create problems for a multinational when they want to hire a CEO from abroad. Unless of course the CEO is Dutch and has been living outside the Netherlands only for 17 years. So he makes it more difficult for Philips to attract a Dutch CEO from abroad than a foreign CEO. Makes no sense to me.

The salary requirement should be lowered, it will now affect too many knowledge migrants in the Netherlands, while on the other hand a group is not affected at all.

Expatax is fighting against this salary requirement and wants it reduced and has combined forces with the municipalities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Brainport Eindhoven, Expatcenters and international companies.

Will expats lose their job at ING?

Are #expats at #ING facing possible #redundancy?

Today ING has indicated that they are going to reduce their workforce with 2,700 people. 2,000 of them will be full time jobs within the company, the other 700 will be external employees who are posted at ING.

Reasons for this decision are:

- changing economic and financial environment
- reduced demand for mortgages
- stricter rules for the banking sector which require cost reductions

The sector itself also made it more difficult to get a mortgage. They have tightened the rules too. So it is not strange that the demand for mortgages has reduced. Therefore the reduced amount of work is a consequence of their own policy too.

It is easy to look at the changing economic and financial environment. But why not look at the possibilities? Act as an entrepreneur. Create business. Even the current rules give room for flexibility. Money should be flowing again and the economy grow. If banks sit on their money, the crisis can't be overwon. Instead of saving costs, the focus should be on making a profit. Profits which can be made by lending out money, as a mortgage or as a loan to companies. Otherwise it will become a negative spiral.

Many of the external employees posted at ING may be expats. We should keep these expats in the Netherlands. This is the wrong signal.

The reorganisation should be finalized at the end of 2013. Hopefully the reorganisation will not have to be finalized but can be stopped in the mean time. But if you do become redundant look at the options you have. For more info see www.expatax.nl/redundancy.

Expats face lower net income due to higher income related contribution Health Care Insurance Act 2012

In 2012 the ceiling for the income-related contribution Health Care Insurance Act (ZVW) will increase.

Employers are hardly prepared for the increase of the contribution.

Employees who earn more than around € 36,500 per year will be faced with considerably higher health care costs next year, which can increase with € 500 per year. Also employers can be confronted with much higher costs. Particularly at companies where remunerations are high. They must take into account an additional claim for health care contributions of up to 35% compared to 2011.

Income-related contribution

Employees pay a flat-rate nominal premium every month. Besides that also an income-related contribution is owed, however this amount is reimbursed by the employer. Since the employer pays it for the employee it is treated as a taxable benefit and therefore wage tax is calculated on this contribution. The wage tax is taken from the gross salary the employee earns. The income-related contribution is based on what the employee earns, whereby an income ceiling applies of
€ 33,427. The cabinet has decided that this ceiling will be increased to € 50,056. Since 2006 the maximum income-related contribution per person has increased by 33% (the increase for next year included).

Companies where most of the employees earn more than € 33,427, can see the health care costs increase enormously. The higher ceiling has an irrevocable impact on the purchasing power of the employee and therefore also on the salary negotiations. Many companies have not yet considered this. Currently the contribution is 7.75% of the income. That percentage goes down next year to 7.10%, but due to the higher ceiling many employees will nevertheless feel this change in their pockets.

Example of the consequences for an employee

For an employee who earns € 70,000, the income-related contribution currently is 7.75% of € 33,427 which is € 2,590 on an annual basis. Based on a tax rate of 52% it will cost the employee
€ 1,347. Next year the contribution will become 7.1% of € 50,056 euro which is € 3,554 euro on an annual basis. Based on a tax rate of 52% this will cost the employee € 1.848. Although the percentage goes down, the net income of the employee will therefore be reduced with € 501. Only if the income is below € 36,500 the employee will benefit. However most expats will be earning more than this amount. 

Example of the consequences for an employer

For the employer the costs of an employee with a salary of € 70,000 will increase with almost € 1,000 per year. When a lot of employees earn more than € 50,056 this can lead to high additional costs. Especially if the involved employees want to see the reduction of their net salary covered by the employer. However if most of the employees earn less than € 36,500 the employer may benefit of the lower percentage.

Conclusion

Both employer and employee should be aware of the possible higher health care contribution in 2012.