(NETHERLANDS) — Dutch lawmakers advanced a sweeping overhaul of the country’s Box 3 wealth tax toward a planned 2028 start, even as Finance Minister Eelco Heinen moved this week to amend the design after a backlash over taxing unrealized capital gains.
The bill, known as the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3, passed the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) on February 12, 2026, with 93 out of 150 votes, and now awaits Senate (Eerste Kamer) approval for its planned effective date of January 1, 2028.
Heinen announced amendments on February 25, 2026, after critics attacked the proposal’s treatment of annual value increases and what they see as one-sided loss rules. He said it “cannot proceed as it is” and “something simply went wrong”.
The shift matters because the Netherlands has tried to rebuild Box 3 after the Dutch Supreme Court ruled the previous assumed-return approach invalid starting December 2021. Lawmakers drafted the new system to move from deemed gains to taxing actual investment outcomes, but the proposed definition of “actual” includes paper gains for many widely held assets.
Under the bill, taxpayers would pay a flat 36% tax on actual returns from savings and investments. For listed assets such as stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies, that return includes unrealized capital gains, meaning annual value increases would enter the tax base even when an investor does not sell.
Supporters describe the approach as closer to economic reality than imputing a notional return, but opponents argue it forces people to find cash to pay tax on gains they have not realized. The liquidity question has become central to the political debate because a tax bill can arrive without any sale proceeds to cover it.
The design also draws criticism for how it handles downturns. The bill allows unlimited loss carry-forward for losses >€500, but Heinen pointed to the lack of loss carry-back as one of the elements drawing fire, with opponents saying the system taxes gains promptly while offering less immediate relief when prices fall.
Even with those arguments raging, the bill retains carve-outs that keep some assets on a realization basis. Real estate falls outside the unrealized-gain approach, and taxpayers would pay tax only when a transaction such as a sale or gift occurs.
A second exception covers qualifying startup shares, which the bill defines with specific conditions. The company must be incorporated ≤5 years ago, it must have revenue <€30 million, and <25% can be owned by non-startups, in order for the shares to remain taxed only on realization.
The draft law also includes a €1,800 tax-free annual return per taxpayer. Lawmakers added the allowance as a relief measure, but critics still argue the bill can hit investors whose holdings rise on paper even if they do not receive cash income.
Heinen’s comments on February 25 followed public outrage and social media protests that spread claims the Netherlands had already scrapped the plan. The government has not cancelled the 36% tax on unrealized capital gains, and the legislative track remained open on February 26, 2026, with the bill still pending in the Senate.
Political leaders have also faced warnings about capital flight and broader economic effects. Critics say an annual tax on paper gains could encourage wealthy households to move assets elsewhere, while others say it could deter risk-taking and harm innovation if fast-growing investments generate taxable gains before any sale.
Those concerns now intersect with coalition politics and a longer-term promise to revisit the architecture. The new D66/VVD/CDA coalition’s January 2026 agreement commits to eventually replacing the approach with a realized-gains-only system by Budget Day 2028, signaling that even supporters see the current design as a bridge rather than a destination.
Parliamentary motions have added pressure to revisit sensitive categories. Motions including no. 22 on family businesses demand a capital-gains-only alternative, reflecting fears that annual valuation-based taxation could create financing strains for owners whose wealth sits in illiquid holdings.
News coverage has amplified the sense of movement, with NL Times reporting the new cabinet is “pulling back” the Box 3 plan over unrealized gains fears, citing Heinen. Crowdfund Insider also pointed to a reversal amid public complaints, even as the bill remained on the formal legislative agenda.
That distinction has become a point of contention in the public debate. Amendment talk and political reconsideration do not amount to repeal, and nothing in the current process automatically eliminates the bill’s core structure without further votes.
The Senate now holds the next decision, and its choices carry high stakes for both implementation and government finances. Senators can approve the bill, reject it, or force a political renegotiation that reshapes the proposal before a final vote.
The timetable matters because building a new “actual return” system requires administrative readiness, and delays could ripple through planning for households, investors and the tax authority. The government also faces fiscal pressure tied to the reform’s expected proceeds.
NL Times reported that the bill remains pending Senate debate this spring to meet the 2028 timeline, and said each delay costs €2.3–2.4 billion in revenue. That estimate has raised the political cost of postponement, even for lawmakers who say they want to change how unrealized gains and losses work.
Heinen’s pledge to amend the bill reflects an attempt to keep the 2028 start within reach while defusing the fiercest criticisms. His focus on unrealized gains taxation and loss carry-back has encouraged opponents who want a realized-only system sooner, but it has also left uncertainty about what “actual return” will mean by the time the Senate votes.
The unresolved questions extend beyond liquid markets. Any renegotiation could reopen the debate over which assets qualify for realization-only treatment, including whether the current approach to real estate and qualifying startup shares will remain intact or expand to other categories that lawmakers view as illiquid or socially sensitive.
Investors, advisers and businesses are now watching for signals on three fronts: whether the Senate moves quickly enough to preserve the January 1, 2028 start date, how far Heinen’s amendments go in narrowing the unrealized-gain approach for listed assets such as securities and crypto, and whether lawmakers reshape the loss rules in a way that addresses the complaint that taxes arrive faster than relief.
The coalition’s commitment to a realized-gains-only system by Budget Day 2028 has also turned into a benchmark that both sides invoke. Supporters cite it as proof the system can evolve; critics cite it as evidence the current bill sets up years of instability.
For now, the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3 remains alive in parliament, and the Netherlands has not cancelled the 36% tax at its core. The weeks ahead will determine whether lawmakers can keep the 2028 timetable while rewriting the parts that prompted Heinen to say it “cannot proceed as it is.”
36% Tax on Unrealized Gains Falls as Social Media Protests Hit Wet Werkelijk Rendement Box 3
The Netherlands is moving toward a 2028 overhaul of its Box 3 wealth tax, transitioning from deemed returns to taxing actual investment outcomes. Despite passing the House, the 36% tax on unrealized gains for stocks and crypto has faced fierce criticism. Finance Minister Eelco Heinen has signaled necessary amendments to address liquidity and loss rules as the bill awaits a high-stakes Senate vote and potential renegotiation.
