“The savings tax ruling does not apply to old cases” | cash

“The savings tax ruling does not apply to old cases” |  cash

This is what Attorney General Rene Nessen advises the Supreme Court. The highest court of our country always adopts such advice.

The Supreme Court ruled at the end of last year that the tax that savers had to pay on their money in 2017 and 2018 was unfair, because their capital growth has stagnated due to very low interest rates. At the same time, they received a blue envelope on the carpet under which the tax authorities charged a fictitious high tax return. This concerns people with savings of at least tens of thousands of euros in the bank.

Compensation

In his advice, Attorney General Nessen states that courts and tribunals should judge the amount of compensation successful savers should receive. “The Supreme Court can then marginally test this interpretation.”

It also appears that people who have objected to the savings tax paid in the past three years are able to get a refund from the tax authorities. Compensation to savers could reach billions of euros. Foreign Minister Van Rijk (Finance) is working on a solution.

However, according to Solicitor General Nessen, the Supreme Court ruling has no consequences for tax assessments prior to 2017. “The Supreme Court is of the view that the situation that existed in 2017 and thereafter is so different from previous years that an assessment had to be made. different than it was in previous years.”

Nearsightedness

Financial expert Cor Overduin of the accounting and consulting firm Grant Thornton, who helps Bond voor Belastingbeers with legal proceedings, believes Niessen is “extremely short-sighted”. According to Overduin, it has already become clear that savers paid a lot of capital taxes in 2015 and 2016.

See also  Twitter Fleets was criticized for being like Snapchat and Instagram stories

“For those years, it was already established by court rulings that 1.2% – the standard applied at the time – was not possible. This means that the infringement of property right is an established fact. By not saying anything about the legal fairness in that area, the lawyer causes General Nessin is at the detriment of these taxpayers,” says Overdeen. “This is a missed opportunity.”

Also listen to the podcast A matter of cents About the savings tax scandal:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.