New Case Law on 30% Ruling
Recently, new Court decisions were published regarding the conditions for the 30%-ruling to apply at a later point in time than the start of employment in the Netherlands.
Scarce specific skills
One of the conditions of the 30%-ruling is that the employee must have specific skills or expertise that are not readily available in the Netherlands. A Portuguese employee did not satisfy this requirement when starting a job in the Netherlands in 2011. The regulations changed on 1 January 2012 such that whether a person is deemed to have the required specific skills or expertise is determined on the basis of a minimum salary criterion. In July 2013 the Portuguese employee reapplied for the 30%-ruling on the basis that he met this new requirement. However, his application was unsuccessful because the Dutch Court ruled that whether or not a person is deemed to have the required specific skills or expertise is determined on the basis of the regulations in force at the date on which employer and employee agree on the employment contract. The Court also ruled that the prohibition of discrimination (article 14) of the European Convention on Human Rights was not violated. The issue will be brought before the Supreme Court.
If employees did not qualify under the former regulations but do qualify under the current ones, they can file a new application and file an objection against a negative decision of the tax authorities pending the abovementioned proceedings.
Continuation of the 30%-ruling when changing jobs
When changing jobs, the 30%-ruling can be continued provided a new application is filed in respect of the new employment. This is only possible if the period in between the two jobs does not exceed three months. This has – again – been confirmed by the Dutch Court (Gelderland). In that particular case, it was argued that an employee who exceeded the three-months period only because he was unable to work at the time should be entitled to a continuation of the 30% ruling. However, this argument was rejected.
Judgement of the Gelderland Court dated 15 May 2014 (in Dutch language)
Judgement of the Zeeland-West-Brabant Court dated 19 February 2014 (in Dutch language)
For further information or to discuss the consequences of the above, please contact Rina Driece, on +31 10 224 6 424 at Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam – www.loyensloeff.com.
Content is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice. If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances. In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article. For further legal information click here.
Circular 230 disclosure
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this article (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
If you would like to copy or otherwise reproduce this article then you may do so provided that: (1) any such copy or reproduction is for your own personal use or if it is made available to any third party it is done so on a free of charge basis; and (2) the article is reproduced in full together with the contact details, disclaimer and any logos as they appear on each article.