Picture a self-employed interior builder who lives across the border, keeps a small workshop in Noord-Brabant, and serves customers in both countries. The workshop has tools, deliveries, rent, and invoices. At year-end, one question sets the return: if the Dutch profit is taxable in the Netherlands, how much of the self-employed deduction belongs there?
Belastingdienst Kennisgroepen answered that on 24 June 2026 in position KG:041:2026:5. In the stated fact pattern, a foreign taxpayer has positive profit abroad and positive profit through a Dutch permanent establishment. The full ondernemersaftrek cannot be charged only to the Dutch establishment profit. It must be split between Dutch and foreign profit.
That is technical on paper. In practice, it is a warning about the order of the calculation.
How the calculation starts
The Dutch tax system treats the permanent establishment as a Dutch slice of a wider enterprise. The Belastingdienst position reads article 7.2, paragraph 2, part a, of the Wet IB 2001 together with article 3.2.
In plain language, taxable business profit is first measured across the whole enterprise. The ondernemersaftrek and the MKB-winstvrijstelling sit inside that profit calculation. Only after that does the tax result get divided into Dutch and foreign parts.
That order matters. If total positive business profit before the deduction is €60,000, and €20,000 belongs to the Dutch permanent establishment, the Dutch share is one third. In a simplified 2026 picture, a €1,200 self-employed deduction follows the same split. One third sits with the Dutch slice. The rest follows the foreign profit.
I read this first as a ledger problem. Only then does it become a tax benefit. The real question is not just whether the entrepreneur qualifies. It is whether the accounts can carry the profit split without improvisation after year-end.
Why the smaller deduction still matters
The self-employed deduction is no longer the large number many founders remember. Belastingdienst guidance sets it at €1,200 for 2026 for an entrepreneur who meets the urencriterium and has not reached AOW age at the start of the calendar year. The tax benefit is calculated at a maximum rate of 37.56%. The starter increase remains €2,123 where the conditions are met.
That smaller amount can make the issue look modest. It is not modest in the return. A wrong allocation can still affect Dutch taxable profit, later use of unused self-employed deduction, and the base for the MKB-winstvrijstelling.
For 2025 and 2026, that exemption is 12.7% of profit after the ondernemersaftrek. In 2026, the benefit is also capped at 37.56%.
So the chain matters. First entitlement. Then the correct profit base. Then the split. Then the exemption. A small number in the wrong place can still make the return tell the wrong story.
The old Gielen memory
Some advisers and experienced entrepreneurs will remember the Gielen case, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BN0666. In 2010, the Hoge Raad accepted that hours worked for the foreign part of the enterprise could count for the urencriterium. The court also looked at worldwide profit for the then profit-dependent deduction amount.
That remains important because it shows the whole-enterprise logic. Hours abroad can matter. Worldwide profit can matter. The 2026 Belastingdienst position gives that same logic a sharper consequence: once the deduction sits inside the total profit calculation, it also follows the split between Dutch and foreign profit.
For the builder with a workshop in Noord-Brabant, this is easy to misread. He may feel that the Dutch workshop created the Dutch tax bill, so the Dutch workshop should get the full deduction. The tax calculation is less emotional. It asks where the profit arose across the whole enterprise, then divides the result.
Presence is more than a client list
KVK guidance from June 2026 adds a useful distinction for registration. Dutch clients alone are different from Dutch business activity. A business abroad can have Dutch customers without automatically being a Dutch-registered business.
Paid work in the Netherlands, a Dutch business address, or a real operating base can change the picture. Tax follows its own rules, and treaties can matter. Still, the practical distinction helps. A Dutch customer list is one thing. A Dutch workshop, sales location, staff base, or permanent representative is another.
Once the Dutch presence is real enough to create a permanent establishment, the accounts need to show the Dutch profit that belongs to it.
That is where many small businesses create their own difficulty. They know which invoices were Dutch. They know where they slept. They know which customers called. But the ledger may not show which costs supported the Dutch activity, which hours belonged to which part of the enterprise, and how shared expenses were divided.
What the file should show
A strong return position starts with the business story. Where was the work performed? Which location produced which turnover? Which costs belonged directly to the Dutch establishment? Which costs were shared? How were hours recorded for the ondernemersaftrek? Does the Dutch registration, if present, match the actual activity?
None of this needs drama. It needs consistency. The invoice record, the calendar, the mileage, the rent, the workshop costs, the website, the contracts, and the income tax return should describe the same business.
For micro-entrepreneurs, that is the practical lesson from the Belastingdienst position. In the clean positive-profit case, the ondernemersaftrek stays inside the wider calculation. The deduction then follows the profit split. That makes the split more important than many founders expect.
The builder in Noord-Brabant does not need to fear the rule. He needs to stop treating the Dutch workshop as a separate tax pocket. It is part of one enterprise, and the Dutch return receives only the Dutch slice of that enterprise.
That is the calm way to look at cross-border tax. It is not a hunt for the most favourable line. It is a disciplined account of where the business actually made its money.
If your Dutch file needs a cleaner profit split before filing, we can review the numbers and records
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Linda Pavan. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Linda Pavan before publication.
