A founder receives a tax question about a foreign structure created years ago. The accountant has the Dutch returns, but the annual reports sit with an overseas director. A custodian holds other statements. Someone who once managed the structure has stopped replying.
The founder sees records held elsewhere. The inspector sees financial interests, formal roles and possible routes to request them.
That tension sits at the heart of an Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruling of 28 April 2026, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:2718. The case concerned information orders for income-tax years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
The taxpayer was connected to a foreign private foundation, or SPF, as settlor, sole beneficiary and supervisory-board member. He also owned the company that received participations from the foundation. The SPF held participations in foreign companies that were active in online gambling.
The Court upheld the information orders. Its reasoning reaches beyond wealthy families and foreign foundations. A record may sit with another director, company or service provider while responsibility for pursuing it remains close to the person whose money, company and tax position it explains.
Distance is not the same as absence
Article 47 of the General Tax Act allows the inspector to request information, books and records that may be relevant to a person’s taxation. Article 52a allows the inspector to record failures in an information order, which the taxpayer can challenge.
The Court examined the taxpayer’s financial interest, formal positions, involvement with the entities and practical access to their records. It considered it plausible that the SPF manager had to account to him annually and that he could obtain the annual reports.
The formal director of his wholly owned company had also indicated a willingness to cooperate. The taxpayer’s involvement and financial interest created an available route to the company’s administration.
The underlying participations mattered as well. The Court found that the taxpayer had made no meaningful effort to obtain their administration, despite his involvement, financial interest and an available inspection route under the relevant foreign law.
This is best understood as a question of evidential control. Physical possession and practical access are different things. A document may be stored in another country, yet remain within reach through ownership, authority, contractual rights or an established working relationship.
A bare statement that an administrator holds the records carries little weight when the business owner has a reasonable way to ask, inspect or escalate. The Court’s reasoning remained tied to the facts: the strength of the person’s connection, the value involved and the routes available at the time.
The request trail has business value
Small companies meet the same problem in less exotic settings. A former bookkeeper holds an old accounting export. A payroll provider retains the calculations behind a wage run. A payment platform keeps transaction histories that were never downloaded.
A foreign supplier may hold rebate statements needed to explain a balance. An owner may not have the material in the office today, but the practical question is whether it remains retrievable through a reasonable request.
That makes the request trail part of the business record. Dates, named contacts, reminders, replies, rejected access requests and contractual rights give shape to the effort made. They also show an adviser whether the missing information reflects a genuine access problem, a damaged relationship or years of administrative neglect.
Return to the founder waiting for the overseas director. One unanswered email says little. A sequence of clear requests through available contractual and governance channels tells a fuller story.
It may not recover every missing page. It does show how the company handled a record it needed. That visibility matters before any dispute begins.
It reveals which external party holds essential business memory and whether the owner can recover it within a reasonable time. A structure that relies on personal goodwill rather than documented access is fragile, even when the underlying transactions are commercially sound.
The tax return no longer stands alone
Cross-border reporting adds another layer. The Dutch government states that the Belastingdienst exchanges tax information with more than 100 countries.
Under the Common Reporting Standard, exchanged financial information can include account balances, interest, dividends, insurance values and proceeds from the sale of financial products. Account-holder identification details can also be included.
Banks, insurers, investment institutions, certain payment providers and other designated institutions supply specified data to the Belastingdienst under international reporting rules. For an owner-manager, this changes the working context.
A Dutch tax return may be read alongside information supplied by foreign tax authorities and financial institutions. The useful discipline is reconciliation. The private return, company ledger, foreign statements and ownership records need to tell the same economic story.
When a bank reports an account, the owner needs a coherent explanation of who beneficially held it and how the income was treated. When a foreign entity transfers value, the board records, accounting entries and tax position need to connect.
These are annual-closing questions, while directors still respond and access credentials still work. The cheapest moment to recover a record is usually before anybody urgently needs it.
Timing shapes the dispute
The Court assessed the taxpayer’s efforts according to the circumstances when the information orders were issued in 2016. Later events could not change what had been done, or left undone, at that moment.
A record recovered years later may still help explain a tax position. It does not remove the earlier cost of failing to pursue a reasonable route to that record.
The judgment also preserves an important procedural boundary. Upholding an information order does not automatically decide whether reversal and increase of the burden of proof will apply in later proceedings concerning the tax assessments. That question belongs to the assessment dispute.
Even so, an information dispute can absorb years before the underlying tax issue reaches a conclusion. These cases began with historic tax years and continued through hearings in 2026. Adviser fees, management attention and uncertainty around private and company cash become part of the price.
The calm lesson is not to fear foreign structures or external administrators. It is to know where the records live, who can request them and whether that authority survives a change of director, adviser or family relationship.
A foreign party may keep the archive. Dutch tax responsibility can remain with the person whose money, company and decisions the archive explains.
Need to identify who holds your tax records and how to retrieve them? We can help you prepare an access plan
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.
