Coalition wants to delay Box 3
VVD, D66 and CDA want to postpone the introduction of a tax on actual returns, while funding and the final model remain uncertain.
Follow-up to: Council of State criticises haste over new box 3 system Monday, 2 November 2026, 20:17
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The coalition parties have agreed to delay the new Box 3 system by a year, the FD reports. This leaves it unclear for longer how savings, investments and property will be taxed from 2028.
The current proposal would tax actual returns on assets. Under the new agreement, the coalition wants to postpone its introduction by a year. It is not yet clear from the reported agreement how the delay will be arranged legally and in budgetary terms.
The debate is not only about the implementation date. It also involves questions about legal viability and the feasibility of implementation by the Tax Administration. The Council of State had previously criticised the speed with which the new proposal moved through the legislative process.
Under the current system, the tax authorities calculate a notional return. This can benefit people who actually achieve higher returns than the standard rate, but disadvantage those with low or negative returns. According to NOS, a delay could cost the Treasury more than €2 billion a year compared with the earlier estimate.
One question concerning the design is when tax becomes due. Under a capital gains tax, increases in value also count while an asset has not been sold. Under a capital gains tax based on realised gains, the charge arises only upon sale. From a left-wing perspective, taxation according to ability to pay carries significant weight; from a right-wing perspective, the central objection is that tax would have to be paid on unrealised gains before those gains are available.
An agreement to delay the system does not in itself clarify its final design. Savers, investors and landlords do not yet know definitively which system will apply to them. The next question is therefore not only when the law will take effect, but also which forms of wealth will be taxed, how losses will be treated and who will pay for the temporary budgetary shortfall.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
Both sides of the figures
▲ Bright spots
- In time, the new system could correspond more closely to actual returns than the current notional system, as NOS describes the bill.
- A one-year delay could give the Tax Administration additional preparation time, depending on when the design is finalised.
▼ Concerns
- NOS mentions a possible budgetary shortfall of more than €2 billion a year.
- Savers, investors and landlords will remain uncertain for longer about their future tax burden.
Critical note
This concerns taxation of wealth, not economic growth. The main uncertainty lies in the design and funding, which have not yet been settled; the €2 billion is a budgetary estimate of the consequences of the delay.
Who notices what
- Households
- Wealthy households will not know for longer which returns and increases in value will eventually be taxed.
- Businesses
- Entrepreneurs with assets held through a limited company or privately will receive clarity on the tax treatment later.
- Government
- The government will have to cover a possible gap of more than €2 billion a year or adjust spending instead.
Every point comes from the article’s sources and was included in the fact check.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The coalition wants to delay the introduction of the new Box 3 system.
- The current system uses a notional return.
- A system based on actual returns can tax unrealised increases in value annually.
- A capital gains tax generally charges tax upon sale.
- According to NOS, a delay could reduce annual revenue by more than €2 billion.
Left
Arguments A tax on actual returns should prevent people with low actual returns from being taxed relatively heavily. Delay keeps in place for longer a system that does not tax wealth according to actual ability to pay.
Values Equality, ability to pay, and protection for small savers and people with low returns.
Consequences Rapid introduction could improve fairness, but a poorly designed system could lead to new legal proceedings and implementation problems.
Centre
Arguments The law must be legally robust, workable and fiscally responsible. A one-year delay may be defensible if it is needed to improve the scheme, but it also requires a clear transitional arrangement.
Values Legal certainty, feasibility and administrative continuity.
Consequences More preparation could limit errors, but citizens and businesses will remain uncertain for longer about their future tax burden.
Right
Arguments Taxation upon sale prevents people from paying tax on increases in value that they have not yet realised. The government should also be cautious about introducing new rules that discourage saving and entrepreneurship.
Values Property rights, predictability and limited government.
Consequences A delay could create room for a simpler capital gains tax, but would increase budgetary pressure and could make postponing sales more attractive.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s core is based on recent reporting by the FD and on the confirmed political impasse in NOS and government sources. The text distinguishes between the new agreement and elements that have not yet been finalised.
- confirmed The coalition wants to delay the introduction of the new Box 3 system. — The supplied FD headline reports an agreement on a one-year delay; NOS confirms that the coalition wants to defer the bill. source
- confirmed The proposed system taxes actual returns. — NOS describes the proposal as taxation of the actual return on savings and investments. source
- confirmed A delay could cost the Treasury more than €2 billion a year. — This figure appears in NOS’s description of the consequences of the delay. source
Editor's note
The new agreement to delay the system by a year comes from the recent headlines supplied; the freely available sources confirm the political impasse, the risk of delay and the budgetary consequences, but do not provide all the details of the new coalition agreement.Sources
The story so far
- Sunday, 1 November 2026, 19:14 Cabinet promises new proposal for box 3
- Monday, 2 November 2026, 10:48 Council of State puts new box 3 plan under heavy pressure
- Monday, 2 November 2026, 20:17 Council of State criticises haste over new box 3 system
- Monday, 2 November 2026, 22:47 Coalition wants to delay Box 3 (this article)
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „box 3”
- De Telegraaf — „box 3”
- AD — „box 3”