Coalition parties and cabinet are still holding out about savings tax compensation | Inland

The question of who is entitled to a tax refund is currently a rock in the stomach of the House and Cabinet. Tens of thousands of people who had joined a case in which the Supreme Court torpedoed the savings tax will get money back anyway. Last week, Van Rij presented two options for expanding this group: only compensate overpaid tax on savings (costs: about 7 billion) or also accommodate investors (11 billion).

That question is also at the forefront of the consultations currently being held at the top of the cabinet and coalition about the Spring Memorandum and the billions of holes in the budget. The coalition parties therefore did not show their backs in the debate on the box 3 tax on Wednesday.

“We are still in discussions with each other,” said VVD MP Idsinga to the Spring Memorandum talks. He didn’t even want to give any direction as to where the money for the compensation should come from. Idsinga did say that it would be ‘strange if we included others than savers in that compensation’, but did not want to be tied down to that after further questioning.

D66 and CDA were a bit more open: as far as they are concerned, the money should also be collected from wealthy people, for example from entrepreneurs in box 2. “We are not in favor of taking it away from workers,” says CDA MP Van Dijk.

PvdA and GL also make a point of that. If the money for the compensation is not found in another form of wealth tax, the coalition ‘does not even have to reach out’ to the left-wing parties for support for the budget, says PvdA MP Nijboer.

pronounced

Opposition parties were more outspoken anyway. JA21 Member of Parliament Eppink wants at least small savers to receive money, although it is legally difficult for the Tax Authorities to describe this group. He himself thinks of people with ‘a piggy bank in addition to a low income, who do not or hardly invest’. As far as SGP MP Stoffer is concerned, every saver gets money back: “Paying taxes is no fun, and paying too much is certainly not the case.”

In the discussion, VVD and D66 refer to a new case at the Supreme Court. In it, someone who had not joined the large group of objectors to the savings tax ruling asked whether they are also entitled to a refund. The ruling may have implications for how large the tax group to be offset should be. “Can it be useful to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on this?” asks D66 MP De Jong.

State Secretary Van Rij also sees something in this: “The advantage if you let the Supreme Court speak first, is that you know what the highest court thinks about it.” This can prevent the choice for a certain group to receive money back from being immediately torpedoed by the highest court. For the time being, it also makes a difference to the account of the Spring Bill. The cabinet then only has to compensate the objectors and not yet completed declarations, which costs about 4 billion euros.

—