A founder reviews a 2023 income tax assessment at the kitchen table. Most private wealth sits in savings. The interest was modest, while part of the balance fell within the heffingsvrij vermogen. The instinctive conclusion is simple: surely the tax comparison should ignore the return connected to that exempt amount.
A recent Taxence item raised precisely this question. The current answer comes from Belastingdienst guidance and the Hoge Raad judgment of 6 June 2024, ECLI:NL:HR:2024:704. The exemption reduces the taxable base under the forfaitary method. It does not reduce the return counted when a taxpayer reports actual return.
That distinction feels technical until money is attached to it. For 2023, the exemption was €57,000 per person, or €114,000 for fiscal partners. Interest earned on savings within that amount still forms part of actual return. The counter-evidence route is not a second version of the normal box 3 calculation. It asks a different question.
Two calculations, two purposes
The forfaitary method estimates return using prescribed percentages. In 2023, bank balances carried a 0.92 percent forfaitary return. Investments and other assets carried 6.17 percent, while the percentage for debts was 2.46 percent. The exemption then affected the taxable-base calculation. The box 3 tax rate was 32 percent.
The actual-return route follows different mechanics. It examines what happened across the complete box 3 position during the calendar year. That can include interest, dividends, rent, and changes in asset values. Both realised and unrealised value movements may count. Gains and losses within the same year are combined.
The founder at the kitchen table therefore cannot isolate one savings account because it produces the most favourable comparison. A securities gain, crypto movement, second property, or private receivable may change the result. A negative total actual return is set at zero, and the loss cannot move into another tax year.
I read this as a discipline problem before it becomes a tax problem. The useful question is not whether one account earned little. It is whether the full, documented box 3 return was lower than the forfaitary outcome already used for that year.
The household balance sheet matters
For a household holding only savings, the reconstruction may remain manageable. Annual statements show balances and interest. Complexity arrives when private wealth has accumulated across several places: a broker, a second home, crypto accounts, family loans, debts, and cash moved between accounts during the year.
The Hoge Raad placed the burden on the taxpayer seeking relief. The taxpayer must state the actual return across the entire box 3 estate and, if challenged, make that return plausible. Ownership records, annual statements, and valuations are therefore part of the substance. They are not administrative decoration.
Fiscal partners have another layer to consider. They may allocate the joint box 3 base between them in the income tax return, but the evidence still needs to reflect the real assets, debts, and ownership position. A chosen allocation does not repair incomplete records.
Our founder may discover that the savings interest is the easiest figure in the calculation. The harder work lies in establishing what happened elsewhere. One strong investment year can outweigh low bank interest. Missing valuations can also turn a potentially useful claim into an expensive reconstruction exercise whose cost exceeds the likely reduction.
For small business owners, there is a further boundary. Money in a private account and money in a company are not interchangeable simply because both ultimately support the same family. Corporate cash remains within the company. Private savings may fall within box 3. The records should preserve that separation.
Cash needs a credible purpose
Sole proprietors face a different issue because their business is not a separate legal person. Cash that is sustainably surplus to operations, investment plans, and business risks can move from business assets into the private sphere for income tax purposes. Calling a balance working capital in the bookkeeping does not settle its character.
The practical judgment concerns its job. Upcoming VAT, payroll, tax payments, seasonal purchasing, equipment replacement, and contractual commitments can explain a substantial balance. Cash retained without a continuing business purpose is harder to defend as business capital.
This is where ledger discipline and tax discipline meet. A large balance needs more than a label. It needs a business story supported by dates, forecasts, and commitments. That does not require a thick report. It requires records made while the reasons are still clear, rather than a reconstruction years later.
The same principle applies after money enters the private estate. A box 3 review works best when the annual private position can answer three questions: what was owned or owed, what return arose, and which records support it? With those answers available, the comparison becomes an accounting exercise rather than an argument built from memory.
A refund is not yet cash
The counter-evidence route can produce a reduction where documented actual return is lower than the forfaitary result. Timing deserves equal attention. The Belastingdienst began processing forms for 2021, 2022, and 2023 during 2026. It has said that handling the expected volume may continue into 2030.
For cash planning, a possible reduction is therefore a contingent tax position, not money ready for investment or private spending. The economic claim and the cash receipt may sit years apart. Treating them as the same event can create a liquidity mistake even when the tax analysis is sound.
Back at the kitchen table, the founder’s first instinct was understandable. An exemption feels as though it should shield both capital and the income connected to it. Under the current rules, it does not work that way. The exemption belongs to the forfaitary calculation. Actual return remains actual return across the whole box 3 estate.
The calm response is not to assume that counter-evidence will help, nor to dismiss it. Establish the complete annual position and compare like with like. In box 3, the friendliest account rarely tells the whole household story.
Want us to review your box 3 records, calculation, and possible claim?
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Paolo Maria 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 Paolo Maria Pavan before publication.
