Back in May I posted my notes from the Senate expert hearing on bill 36748 (Wet werkelijk rendement box 3). I listed a few things I'd be watching. All of them have now happened, so: follow-up.

Short version up front: the bill has not passed, has not been withdrawn, and there still has been no vote on the bill itself. But what did happen shifts the direction quite a bit.

What happened since May 19

The written round ran its course

• May 26 — committee input for the second report (this was on my previous watchlist; done).
• May 29 — second report from the Finance Committee, Senate doc G.
• June 12 — government reply to the second report, doc H.

The government letter arrived — and it's the most substantive thing in this whole period

• June 19 — State Secretary Eerenberg sends a letter (doc I) on improving the act, plus a route toward developing it into a capital-gains tax (vermogenswinstbelasting). That means taxing realized gains — on sale — instead of annual accrual.

  This is exactly what VNO-NCW, the NOB and a majority of senators were pushing for in May. The government isn't saying "we're scrapping the accrual tax", but it is formally opening the door. Budget decisions in August, a novelle (amending bill) on Prinsjesdag.

• June 23 — the committee decides to fold that letter into the plenary treatment.

The plenary debate, June 30

Four motions tabled:

• J — Kroon (BBB) et al.: invest in an act built on a capital-gains tax.
• K — Van den Oetelaar (FVD) et al.: provide insight into its expected long-term revenue.
• L — Van Rooijen (50PLUS): a one-off reduction in dividend tax.
• M — Schalk (SGP) et al.: "no objection to withdrawing the bill".

The most striking part of the debate: coalition party CDA raised fundamental objections to taxing unrealized equity gains — along the lines of "paying tax on money that isn't there". That's the same core point Kroonenberg (Van Lanschot Kempen) and Overduin (Vastgoed Belang) made in May, now coming from a governing party.

The final vote on the bill has been postponed until the announced novelle has been dealt with.

The vote, July 7

• Motion Schalk (withdraw) → rejected, by sitting and standing. Against: GroenLinks-PvdA, Volt, ChristenUnie, CDA, D66, SP, PvdD, VVD, Fractie-Visseren-Hamakers, OPNL. In favour: among others SGP, FVD, PVV, JA21, BBB, 50PLUS.
• Motions J, K and L → held. Important detail: held is not withdrawn. The three motions pushing toward a capital-gains tax are still on the table and can still be brought to a vote — most likely as leverage during the novelle.
• The bill itself was not put to a vote.

Note what that combination means: the Senate did not want to take the bill off the table (M rejected), but also won't vote for it while the novelle isn't there. The file is parked, not decided.

Why this matters for investors

1. The accrual-vs-realization question is now an official government track, not just an opposition wish. If that track holds, the liquidity problem from May eventually goes away — tax on paper gains you can't pay without selling. But "eventually" is the operative word: the current statutory text is still an accrual tax.
2. Planning uncertainty went up, not down. You now know a novelle is coming, but not what's in it. Anyone trying to structure a portfolio or property holding for 2028 is still building against a moving target.
3. January 1, 2028 is getting tight. The novelle only lands mid-September and then has to clear both chambers. Meanwhile December 31, 2027 stands as the hard deadline for phasing out the tax authority's CoolGen system. Those two dates leave very little room.
4. Loss offsetting and the real-estate bijtelling are still unresolved. Loss offsetting, an exemption for early-stage entrepreneurs, and the route to a capital-gains tax all came back in the debate as requested softeners. Commitments, not statutory text.

What shifted politically since May

• The government now acknowledges a route to a capital-gains tax itself. In May that was a position held by experts and part of the Senate.
• CDA moved from coalition party to explicit critic on the core mechanism of the act.
• The bloc backing the original proposal is unchanged — narrow but firm: SP, Volt and GroenLinks-PvdA remain explicitly pro-accrual.
• Withdrawal has been politically tested and refused. That's the clearest single piece of information from this period: a majority wants to repair, not restart.

Four scenarios — updated

Scenario	May	Now	Δ
Passes unchanged	10%	5%	↓
Passes with a novelle	35%	40%	↑
Delayed to 2029	45%	50%	↑
Withdrawn and redesigned	10%	5%	↓

Still my own estimate, not a prediction. The reasoning: withdrawal was explicitly voted on and rejected, so that scenario drops. Passing unchanged is effectively off the table as long as the government itself is announcing a novelle. What's left is a timing question — whether the novelle is ready fast enough for 2028, or whether it becomes 2029. I lean toward the latter.

What's coming

• August 2026 — government budget decisions on the adjustments. This determines how much softening is financially affordable.
• Prinsjesdag, September 15 — the novelle is submitted with the Tax Plan package. (In May I wrote September 16; it's the 15th.)
• Autumn 2026 — treatment of the novelle plus the final vote on 36748.
• December 31, 2027 — hard deadline for the CoolGen phase-out at the tax authority.
• January 1, 2028 — planned entry into force, increasingly uncertain.

The novelle on Prinsjesdag is when this file actually moves again. Until then, expect little news.

Sources (Senate)

• Motions on 36748 with voting results: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/moties_bij?key=vmnm2y9y4oyv
• Motion vote, July 7: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/verslagdeel/20260707/moties_wet_werkelijk_rendement_box
• Plenary treatment, June 30: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/verslagdeel/20260630/wet_werkelijk_rendement_box_3
• Continuation of plenary treatment, June 30: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/verslagdeel/20260630/wet_werkelijk_rendement_box_3_2
• State Secretary's letter, June 19: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20260619/brief_van_de_staatssecretaris_van_2/info
• Reply to second report, June 12: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20260612/nota_naar_aanleiding_van_het_5/info
• Full file on bill 36748: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/36748_wet_werkelijk_rendement_box

And for anyone wanting to re-read the May 19 hearing: the official transcripts of both blocks were published in early July, so they're now text-searchable instead of video-only.

Not financial advice, still just notes. Corrections welcome — last time they produced some good ones.

---

Discussion: has anyone actually changed their portfolio or property structure since May, and who's deliberately sitting still until the novelle lands? And: if the government really does shift toward a capital-gains tax, is 2028 still realistic, or should we mentally be aiming at 2029?

(voor de anti ai mensen, ja dit is gegenereerd door ai, maar wel met heel veel context aanpassingen en opbouw. Dit heeft wat tijd gekost om dit zo te laten genereren.) (for the anti ai people, yea this was generated by ai, but with a lot of context changes and build up. this took some time to generate.)

Also the title is dutch and the body is english, i wanted to post in english but i made the mistake of posting it in dutch. Changed the body to english, i can not change the title to english after a post. sorry about that )

Eerste keer dat ik hier post. Gisteren gebeurde er iets in de Eerste Kamer dat iedereen raakt met spaargeld, beleggingen of vastgoed in privébezit, dus deel ik mijn aantekeningen.

Wat is er aan de hand (in 2 alinea's)

Box 3 is de belasting op je vermogen — spaargeld, aandelen, tweede huis, crypto. Nu betaal je belasting over een fictief rendement (forfait). De Hoge Raad heeft gezegd: dat mag niet meer als je werkelijke rendement lager was, dus is er een tegenbewijsregeling. Te ingewikkeld voor de lange termijn.

De oplossing van het kabinet heet wetsvoorstel 36748 — Wet werkelijk rendement box 3. Vanaf 2028 zou je belasting betalen over je werkelijk behaalde rendement. Klinkt eerlijker. Maar er zit een scherp randje aan: niet alleen verkochte winst, ook waardestijging van wat je nog vasthoudt wordt belast ("aanwasbelasting"). Stijgt je aandelenportefeuille of huurpand in een jaar met €50.000? Belasting betalen, ook al heb je niets verkocht.

Wat er gisteren gebeurde

De Eerste Kamer hoorde negen externe deskundigen — hoogleraren, NOB, VNO-NCW, Vastgoed Belang, Van Lanschot Kempen, Dutch Startup Association. Vier uur. Twee blokken.

Van de negen verdedigde maar één hoogleraar (Bas Jacobs, VU) het voorstel volmondig. De andere acht waren kritisch of adviseerden zelfs intrekking.

Kort wat ze zeiden:

• Bas Jacobs (VU) verdedigend — aanwasbelasting is de enige systeemzuivere oplossing, anders krijg je lock-in (mensen verkopen nooit om belasting te vermijden). Noemde de publieke reactie "hysterisch".
• Ruud van den Dool (Nyenrode) verdedigend met voorbehoud — eens met principe, oneens met uitvoering.
• Edwin Heithuis (UvA) adviseerde intrekken — "dure tijdelijke tussenstap", maak een herontworpen wet voor 2028.
• Peter Essers (Tilburg, ex-senator) noemde het dossier "een treurspel van gemiste kansen". Rechtszekerheid en EU-recht in het geding.
• Robert van der Jagt (NOB) — vestigingsklimaatschade, kapitaalvluchtrisico, asymmetrische verliesverrekening (winst belast, verlies niet of beperkt aftrekbaar).
• VNO-NCW — liever vermogenswinstbelasting (alleen bij verkoop), niet aanwasbelasting.
• Cor Overduin (Vastgoed Belang) — kondigde aan naar de rechter te stappen tegen de vastgoed-bijtelling. Centrale punt: je moet belasting betalen over waardestijging, maar je hebt geen huur-cashflow om het uit te betalen.
• Hanneke Kroonenberg (Van Lanschot Kempen) — cliënten kunnen gedwongen worden tot verkoop van aandelen om de aanslag te kunnen betalen.
• Lucien Burm (Dutch Startup Association) — bijna 40% van gefinancierde start-ups overweegt te vertrekken. Circa 11.000 ondernemingen vallen onder de regeling.

Waarom dit voor beleggers belangrijk is

1. Liquiditeitsrisico. Stijgt je portefeuille hard? Aanslag betalen, ook zonder verkocht te hebben. Bij geconcentreerde posities (één pand, één aandeel) of illiquide allocaties (private equity, crypto in cold storage) kan dat dwingen tot verkoop op verkeerd moment.
2. Verliesverrekening is asymmetrisch. Winst in 2028 → belasting. Verlies in 2029 → in huidige voorstel maar zeer beperkt terug. Loterij-effect.
3. Vastgoed-bijtelling. Waardeverandering wordt jaarlijks belast. Vastgoed Belang gaat hier procederen — dat wordt jaren juridische onzekerheid.

Wat politiek nu kantelt

• Een meerderheid van senatoren neigt nu naar vermogenswinstbelasting (alleen bij verkoop), niet aanwasbelasting.
• VVD-stemmen willen invoering uitstellen naar 2027 zodat de Tweede Kamer eerst kan repareren.
• Aanname in huidige vorm is niet langer het meest waarschijnlijke scenario.

Vier scenario's voor de komende maanden

Scenario	Kans (eigen inschatting)
Aanname onveranderd	10%
Aanname met novelle (reparatie-wet later)	35%
Uitstel naar 2029	45%
Intrekken en herontwerp	10%

Wat komt er aan

• 26 mei — tweede schriftelijke ronde Eerste Kamer
• Voor zomerreces — kabinetsbrief over alternatieve uitwerkingen
• Prinsjesdag (16 sep) — mogelijk een novelle (reparatie-wet)
• Q4 2026 — stemming of formeel uitstelbesluit
• 31 dec 2027 — harde deadline: CoolGen-systeem Belastingdienst moet uit
• 1 jan 2028 — geplande invoering (steeds onzekerder)

Officiële bronnen (Eerste Kamer — livestream-opnames + position papers)

• Blok 1 (academici/NOB): https://www.eerstekamer.nl/commissievergadering/20260519_fin_3/meta
• Blok 2 (bedrijfsleven): https://www.eerstekamer.nl/commissievergadering/20260519_fin/meta
• Volledig dossier 36748: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/36748_wet_werkelijk_rendement_box

Geen financieel advies, alleen wat aantekeningen. Correcties en aanvullingen welkom.

---

(heb een verslag gemaakt maar er geld een no self-promo dus kan de link niet posten)

Discussie: Hoe schat jij de kans in dat dit in huidige vorm wordt aangenomen? Past iemand zijn portefeuille of vastgoed-strategie nu al aan voor 2028? En — als je het standpunt van Jacobs leest — weegt het systeemargument voor jou zwaarder dan de uitvoeringsproblemen?

Yesterday (May 19, 2026), the Eerste Kamer Finance Committee questioned nine external experts on the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3 (bill 36748) for four hours across two blocks. The result is the clearest signal yet on where this is heading — and it is not where the cabinet wants it to go.

The split, in one line

Of the nine experts, only Bas Jacobs (VU) defended the bill in its current form. One other (Ruud van den Dool, Nyenrode) defended the principle but flagged execution. The remaining seven were either critical, called for withdrawal, or announced litigation.

Block 1 — Academics + NOB

• Bas Jacobs (VU) — Defending. Called the public reaction "hysterical". Accrual tax is the only systemically clean option.
• Ruud van den Dool (Nyenrode) — Defending with reservations. "Only way forward" but execution must work.
• Edwin Heithuis (UvA) — Advised withdrawal. "Expensive, temporary intermediate step." Replace with a redesigned bill for 2028 that also serves as the tegenbewijsregeling.
• Robert van der Jagt (NOB) — Strongly critical on feasibility. Investment-climate damage, capital flight, loss-offset gaps, valuation problems.
• Peter Essers (Tilburg) — Called the dossier "a tragedy of missed opportunities". Legal certainty and EU-law durability at risk.

Block 2 — Business + feasibility

• Gijs Strijker (VNO-NCW) — Prefers a capital-gains tax, not accrual. Family firms need predictability.
• Cor Overduin (Vastgoed Belang) — Announced litigation. "Real-estate deemed-return rule is trouble whichever way you slice it."
• Hanneke Kroonenberg (Van Lanschot Kempen) — Clients can be forced to sell to pay tax on unrealized gains. "Not a theoretical concern."
• Lucien Burm (Dutch Startup Association) — Nearly 40% of funded start-ups consider relocating. ~11,000 firms fall under the regime.

What changed politically

• A majority of senators is now leaning toward a capital-gains tax rather than the accrual tax in the current bill.
• VVD voices argued for delaying to 2027 to let the Tweede Kamer repair the bill.
• SP, Volt and GroenLinks-PvdA remain in favour of the original text.
• Passing the bill in current form is no longer the most likely outcome.

What's next

• May 26 — Senate second written round (inbreng tweede verslag)
• Before summer recess — Eerenberg letter on accrual variants + costs
• Prinsjesdag (Sep 16) — Possible novelle filing
• Q4 2026 — Senate vote or formal delay decision
• Dec 31, 2027 — Hard deadline: Belastingdienst CoolGen retirement
• Jan 1, 2028 — Planned entry into force, increasingly uncertain

Full read

I wrote up the full hearing — every speaker with quotes, fault-line analysis, and four scenarios with probability estimates (pass unchanged 10% · pass with novelle 35% · delay to 2029 45% · withdraw and redesign 10%):

• Report: https://box3berekenen.nl/en/political/36748/hearing-19-mei
• Scenarios: https://box3berekenen.nl/en/political/36748/scenarios

Primary sources (Eerste Kamer):

• Block 1: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/commissievergadering/20260519_fin_3/meta
• Block 2: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/commissievergadering/20260519_fin/meta

---

Discussion: Where do you put the probability of passing this bill in its current form? Anyone still expect Jan 1, 2028 to be feasible? And — if you read Jacobs's defence — does the systems argument outweigh the execution problems block 2 raised?

The Eerste Kamer Finance Committee holds two deskundigenbijeenkomsten (expert hearings) on the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3 (bill 36748) today, Tuesday 19 May 2026. Both blocks are public via livestream on the Senate website.

Today's schedule (both ~90 minutes, livestreamed)

Block 1 — 17:00 · Taxation, law and governance

Five experts:

• Edwin Heithuis — University of Amsterdam (professor of tax economics)
• Ruud van den Dool — Nyenrode University (professor of tax economics & tax accounting)
• Bas Jacobs — VU Amsterdam (professor of economics & public finance)
• Robert van der Jagt — Dutch Order of Tax Advisors / NOB (committee on bills)
• Peter Essers — Tilburg Law School (professor, former Senator)

Valuation of illiquid assets, loss offset, legal/EU-law durability, administrative burden.

Block 2 — 19:30 · Business impact, private wealth, and feasibility

Four experts:

• Gijs Strijker — VNO-NCW
• Cor Overduin — Vastgoed Belang
• Hanneke Kroonenberg — Van Lanschot Kempen
• Lucien Burm — Dutch Startup Association

liquidity strain on real estate and start-ups, the cash-flow problem of paying tax on unrealized gains, impact on family-owned firms and the investment climate.

Watch live (official Senate sources)

• Block 1 programme + livestream: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/commissievergadering/20260519_fin_3/meta
• Block 2 programme + livestream: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/commissievergadering/20260519_fin/meta
• Original announcement (May 13): https://www.eerstekamer.nl/nieuws/20260513/twee_deskundigenbijeenkomsten_over
• Bill 36748 dossier (full agenda + position papers): https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/36748_wet_werkelijk_rendement_box

Why this matters

First independent expert input to the Senate on bill 36748 since the March 17 oral consultation with State Secretary Eerenberg. Outcome shapes the second written round on May 26 (one week from today), after which the Senate can move toward plenary debate — or keep waiting for the novelle promised for Prinsjesdag.

For context on the bill, the timeline so far, and what's at stake: https://box3berekenen.nl/en/political/36748/

Watching live? Drop quotes / impressions in the thread. Which speaker do you think moves the needle most — Heithuis and Jacobs on academic/EU-law grounds, or Overduin and Burm on liquidity damage to real estate and start-ups? And does anyone expect the experts to push the Senate toward voting before the novelle arrives, or will it just reinforce "wait until Prinsjesdag"?