Box 3 update: de Eerste Kamer heeft nog steeds niet gestemd — en de motie om de wet in te trekken is verworpen
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Short version up front: the bill has not passed, has not been withdrawn, and there still has been no vote on the bill itself.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 Important detail: held is not withdrawn.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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 )