Netherlands To Amend Controversial 36% Tax On Unrealized Crypto, Stock Gains

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-02-26Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-26

Анотація

Dutch Finance Minister Eelco Heinen has announced that the Netherlands will revise its controversial tax reform bill, which proposed a 36% tax on unrealized gains from crypto, stocks, and other investments. The legislation, known as the Actual Return in Box 3 Act and set to take effect in 2028, has faced strong criticism from lawmakers and investors who argue it is unfair and could drive wealth out of the country. Heinen acknowledged the need for amendments and stated that the government will reexamine the bill with the House of Representatives and the Senate, potentially leading to a complete rewrite if necessary. The current system, which taxes assumed returns, was ruled unsustainable by the Supreme Court, prompting the proposed overhaul.

Dutch financial authorities have revealed that the reform bill to tax unrealized gains on crypto, stocks, and other investments will be revised following criticism from lawmakers and local investors.

Dutch Finance Minister To Revise Tax Overhaul

On Wednesday, the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands, Eelco Heinen, announced that the recently passed bill to tax unrealized gains on crypto and other assets will be reviewed and amended to address multiple concerns brought by the Senate and crypto investors.

“I don’t think the law can go through as it stands,” Heinen told local news outlet RTL Nieuws. “I think something has simply gone wrong here, and the current law needs to be amended.”

The Netherlands plans to overhaul its tax system on January 1, 2028. The proposed system, known as the Actual Return in Box 3 Act, is set to tax investors 36% on the change in value of their crypto and other assets each year, even if these have not been sold.

According to the report, the Dutch finance minister noted that there’s still time to amend the controversial tax overhaul, as it will not be enacted until 2028.

Moreover, he revealed that he has already discussed the bill’s upcoming revision with his state secretary, adding that they are set to examine the legislation and potential amendments with lawmakers.

“We have agreed that we will go back to the drawing board, engage in discussions with the House of Representatives and the Senate, and see how we can amend the law,” he stated.

Heinen also opened the door to a complete rewrite of the crypto tax bill if amendments in certain areas don’t suffice to address the concerns. Nonetheless, he shared that he doesn’t yet know which option will be necessary as they are “just going to have the conversation.”

The Unrealized Crypto, Stock Gains Tax Debate

The new system has been heavily criticized by local investors, who have expressed concerns about being unfairly taxed on their crypto and other assets. Some have argued that the legislation could push wealth out of the country, as crypto investors and other high-net-worth individuals could consider relocating to other jurisdictions with friendlier tax frameworks.

Under the new Box 3 system, the government will calculate tax by comparing the value of an asset at the beginning and end of the year, and the income earned during this period. As a result, both realized and unrealized gains on cryptocurrencies, stocks, bonds, and similar investments will be included.

Only real estate and shares in startups will be exempt from the new system, as they will be taxed when profit is made. Meanwhile, income from these assets will continue to be taxed in the year it is received.

For context, the old Box 3 system taxed investors based on the assumed returns of assets, a practice the Supreme Court ruled unfair and unsustainable after the Dutch state lost several court cases, with every year of delay costing the treasury hundreds of millions, RTL Nieuws detailed.

Since then, lawmakers have been developing the proposed new model that they consider more accurate. However, some reports noted that the government ignored previous concerns and still decided to advance the bill with some adjustments.

Notably, the Dutch House of Representatives passed the legislation two weeks ago, advancing it to the Senate for consideration. RTL Nieuws highlighted that the Dutch Senate, which has yet to discuss the reform plan, also shares similar concerns as investors.

Bitcoin (BTC) trades at $66,445 in the one-week chart. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView

Пов'язані питання

QWhy is the Netherlands planning to amend the controversial tax on unrealized crypto and stock gains?

ADutch Finance Minister Eelco Heinen announced a review and amendment of the tax overhaul due to criticism from lawmakers and local investors, acknowledging that the current law cannot proceed as it stands and something has gone wrong.

QWhat is the proposed tax rate on unrealized gains under the Actual Return in Box 3 Act?

AThe proposed system would impose a 36% tax on the change in value of crypto and other assets each year, even if they have not been sold.

QWhen is the new tax system scheduled to be implemented in the Netherlands?

AThe tax overhaul is planned to take effect on January 1, 2028.

QWhat are the main concerns raised by investors regarding the unrealized gains tax?

AInvestors are concerned about being unfairly taxed on unsold assets, which could lead to wealth leaving the country as high-net-worth individuals might relocate to jurisdictions with more favorable tax frameworks.

QHow did the old Box 3 system differ from the proposed new model?

AThe old Box 3 system taxed investors based on assumed returns of assets, which was ruled unfair by the Supreme Court, while the new model aims to tax actual returns, including both realized and unrealized gains.

Пов'язані матеріали

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit53 хв тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit53 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片