A founder has been unwell for several months. Her partner handles customers and staff, while she still approves bank payments, speaks with the accountant and signs the larger contracts. Turnover is uneven, cash is tight, and the obvious question arrives: can the BV reduce her salary?
The answer sits in the Belastingdienst’s 2026 customary-salary framework. For a director-major shareholder, or DGA, the salary is generally based on the highest of three amounts: pay for the most comparable employment, the salary of the highest-paid employee in the company or a connected company, and €58,000.
That figure attracts attention. Yet the deeper issue is the work behind it.
The role matters more than the label
The €58,000 reference amount is neither a bill detached from reality nor a safe figure that closes the discussion. A lower salary can fit where the company makes a credible case that comparable employment would pay less. The 2026 Handbook Loonheffingen also makes clear that both the level and duration of the work matter.
This is why part-time work can support a lower amount, but the word “part-time” cannot carry the argument alone. Two working days spent on routine administration are different from two days holding final authority over finance, staff, contracts and tax matters. Hours matter, but so do responsibility and decision-making power.
The old 75 per cent efficiency margin has been absent since 2023. The comparison now looks to the full salary for the most comparable employment. That makes the choice of comparison important. A founder cannot simply select a modest administrative role if the actual work resembles financial management or general direction.
I read this as a useful correction to how small companies often discuss DGA pay. The conversation usually starts with available cash. The tax question starts elsewhere: what work took place, who carried the risk, and what would an unrelated employer pay for that role?
Family arrangements need a clear shape
Return to the founder whose partner took over daily operations. Their arrangement may be entirely genuine. Illness, care responsibilities or a difficult trading period can change a company’s working pattern quickly. Small family businesses rarely stop to rewrite every role when life intervenes.
Still, the business needs a coherent account of what changed. Who now manages staff? Who sets prices? Who controls the bank? Who speaks for the company? Which decisions still require the founder’s approval? A reduced presence is not always a reduced role.
The Belastingdienst checklist for customary-salary pre-consultation shows the kind of detail that matters. It asks about concrete duties, working time, experience, management responsibility, company size, complexity, final authority and comparable external pay. It also looks at the highest salary within the company or connected group.
That group view can surprise founders with a holding BV and an operating BV. Informal divisions between entities do not necessarily describe the contractual and employment reality. A management fee, payroll entry or family understanding cannot settle the question by itself. The agreements, actual work and salary treatment need to point in the same direction.
Cash pressure is a different question
A lower DGA salary can look like immediate protection for liquidity. That may be commercially understandable, especially after weak sales or a long recovery period. But cash pressure does not automatically alter the value of the work performed.
The 2026 Handbook distinguishes a genuine threat to continuity from an incidental loss or temporary shortage while bills remain payable. It also pays attention to money leaving through dividends, shareholder current accounts or other withdrawals. A company will struggle to explain that salary was unaffordable if cash continued to reach the shareholder by another route.
There is also a timing risk. If actual salary falls below the amount later treated as customary, the difference may have to enter payroll as fictitious salary. Wage tax can then arise even though the BV did not reserve matching cash. What looked like a liquidity solution during the year can become a payroll bill after the commercial decisions are already closed.
For that reason, I would place the salary discussion beside the monthly cash forecast, not leave it for the annual accounts. This is not about producing paperwork for its own sake. It is about seeing the tax and cash consequences while the company still has room to respond.
Make the business story consistent
For a small BV, a sensible review begins with one plain description of the founder’s actual role. It can separate operational work, financial control, personnel decisions, tax contact and formal representation. An estimate of days or hours gives that description weight, especially where duties cover several connected companies.
The external comparison deserves equal care. The closest job title is not always the closest job. Sector, responsibility, working time, experience and final authority may tell a different story. Salaries elsewhere in the connected group also belong in the picture, including those of other employees with a substantial interest where the official conditions apply.
The founder in our opening scene may have a sound basis for lower pay. Her reduced hours, transferred duties and changed authority may support it. But that conclusion should emerge from the working reality, not from the cash balance alone. Payroll, company records, contracts and daily conduct should tell one recognisable story.
Dutch customary salary is ultimately a question about how the BV is run. When the founder’s role changes, the salary may change with it. The calm approach is to describe that change while it is happening, compare it honestly, and let the number follow the work.
Need a clear file before changing a DGA salary? We can review the role, evidence and payroll impact with you
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.
