Bitcoin Tabs

Voor de mensen die denken dat het tarief in Box 3 niet extreem gestegen is hier een vergelijking met de tarieven in de recente historie. Daarbij, rendement is deels geen reëel rendement maar puur inflatie, gemeten in blokjes kaas blijft er amper rendement over.

Top 3 legal arguments against NL’s new Box 3 unrealised gains tax (36% vermogensaanwas from 1 Jan 2028) The “Wet werkelijk rendement box 3” taxes actual annual mark-to-market gains on stocks, bonds & crypto (real estate/startups on realisation only). Passed Tweede Kamer Feb 2026, now in Eerste Kamer with possible amendments. Critics (Raad van State, academics, tax lawyers) say it still risks ECHR violations like the old forfaitaire system struck down by Hoge Raad (Kerstarrest 2021+). Here are the strongest lawsuit vectors vs the Dutch state post-2028, with reasoned success probabilities based on precedent: 1. Disproportionality & property rights breach (ECHR P1-1 — strongest)
Taxes paper gains without cash inflow/sale. Forces liquidity hits & possible forced sales in volatile markets (esp. crypto/stocks). Only forward loss offsets — year 2 losses don’t refund year 1 tax. Violates “fair balance” between state revenue and individual burden, exactly as in prior Hoge Raad rulings.
Est. success probability: 55-65% (History strongly favours taxpayers on ECHR property interference when liquidity/reality is ignored.) 2. Discrimination/unequal treatment (ECHR Art 14 + P1-1, Dutch Const. Art 1)
Hybrid rules hit liquid financial assets annually but spare illiquid ones. Arbitrary distinction by asset type (not economic substance), enabling arbitrage and lacking objective justification tied to ability-to-pay. Raad van State flagged this risk.
Est. success probability: 45-55% (Courts give legislature margin, but Hoge Raad has struck similar Box 3 unequal treatment before.) 3. Breach of ability-to-pay (draagkrachtbeginsel — constitutional/ECHR-linked)
Taxes non-existent cash “income” that can evaporate, ignoring real financial capacity. Complex valuations add burden and reintroduce fictions via snapshots. Core Dutch tax principle.
Est. success probability: 35-45% (Supportive in proportionality cases but courts defer more here.) Government claims it’s ECHR-proof by taxing “real” returns. But unrealised element + carve-outs recreate the problems that already cost billions in refunds. Expect mass objections & test cases in Hoge Raad/ECHR within 1-2 years if unchanged. Economic risks (capital flight) bolster proportionality claims.