Experts to the Senate: 'The principle is right, this bill is not'
At the May 19 expert hearing, only one academic defended the unrealized-gains bill in its current form. Industry was uniformly critical. A majority of senators now leans toward a capital-gains tax.
For four hours the Senate Finance Committee questioned nine external experts on bill 36748 — the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3 (unrealized gains tax). The picture that emerged is clear: academics are fundamentally split on the chosen method; industry is not.
Among the academics and the Dutch Order of Tax Advisors (NOB), only Bas Jacobs (VU) defended the bill outright. The other four block-1 speakers called the current form untenable or unwise. In block 2, all four stakeholders argued the government should switch to a capital-gains tax — before the bill passes, not after.
Block 1 — Academics and NOB
Five experts assessed the legal and economic logic of the proposal.
“The accrual-based wealth tax is the only systemically clean solution — anything else creates lock-in and tax deferral.”
Jacobs called the public reactions 'hysterical'. Taxing annual accrual prevents investors from deferring realization indefinitely and keeps the tax base broad. Only accrual aligns the tax system with the economic reality of returns.
“Accrual-based wealth tax is the only way forward — but the implementation has to work.”
Van den Dool sided with Jacobs on the systems question but flagged execution frictions, especially around valuing non-listed assets and designing a workable loss-offset regime.
“This is an expensive, temporary intermediate step. Withdraw it and come back with a redesigned bill for 2028.”
Heithuis explicitly advised the Senate to withdraw the bill. Give the legislator time to deliver a redesigned Wet werkelijk rendement for 2028 that doubles as the tegenbewijsregeling for past years — solve two problems at once rather than force a fragile interim solution.
“The investment climate suffers, complexity explodes, and the loss offset does not match the reality of private investors.”
Van der Jagt built on the NOB's March 'nadere beschouwing'. Damage to the investment climate, capital-flight risk, asymmetric loss offset, valuation problems, and disproportionate implementation complexity are, in the NOB's view, structural rather than incidental shortcomings.
“A tragedy of missed opportunities. Legal certainty and EU-law durability are at risk in the current form.”
Essers, himself a former senator, put the dossier in broader perspective: ten years of deliberation, three cabinets later, and what's on the table is an intermediate solution that holds neither fiscally nor legally. He warned of a repeat of the legal problems that destroyed the old box 3 system.
Block 2 — Business and feasibility
Four stakeholders sketched the consequences for firms, investors and implementing parties.
“Family firms and entrepreneurs need predictability — a capital-gains tax provides that, an accrual tax does not.”
VNO-NCW had publicly stated its preference for a capital-gains tax. Strijker repeated that position and linked it to business-succession rules and the investment climate: annually taxing unrealized gains creates an acute liquidity problem for family-owned firms.
“The real-estate deemed-return rule is trouble whichever way you slice it. Vastgoed Belang is taking this to court.”
Overduin was the sharpest voice of the evening. Vastgoed Belang has announced it will litigate against the rule that taxes value changes in real estate. Core arguments: valuation, financing costs, and the absence of actual cash flow to pay the tax bill.
“Clients can be forced to sell to pay tax on unrealized gains — that is not a theoretical concern.”
From the private bank came the mechanical side of the problem: holdings without dividend cash flow can trigger tax bills that clients must fund by selling. That hits concentrated portfolios and illiquid allocations directly.
“Nearly 40% of funded start-ups consider relocating — around 11,000 firms fall under the regime.”
Burm presented survey data: VC-backed start-ups, where unrealized value changes are standard, expect an unsustainable tax burden. The practical outcome: relocation of headquarters abroad.
Where the fault line runs
The split is not between 'tax accrual' and 'tax nothing'. Nobody defended the status quo. The split is between two fiscal architectures: tax annual accrual (Jacobs, Van den Dool) or tax profit on realization (Heithuis, Essers, and all of block 2).
The academic defenders win the systems argument: accrual prevents lock-in, aligns the tax rhythm with economic returns, and forecloses fiscal arbitrage. The critics win the execution argument: valuation, liquidity, loss offset and implementation complexity break down against the reality of Dutch private wealth — particularly in real estate, start-ups, and concentrated portfolios.
What comes next
The committee delivers its second written round on May 26 — one week after the hearing. State Secretary Eerenberg's promised letter on accrual variants is expected before the summer recess. A possible novelle is targeted for Prinsjesdag (September 2026), without firm commitment.
From signals during and after the hearing, the picture is tilting: a majority appears to lean toward delay or a heavy novelle, with a coalition of SP, Volt and GroenLinks-PvdA still backing the original bill. VVD voices argued for delay to 2027 to let the Lower House repair the bill. Passage in current form is no longer the most likely outcome.