Reader question: Experience with the protective assessment

Just as an addition to the latest reactions from Erik and Joop.

A protective assessment for a substantial interest (box 2, because that's what we're talking about here, after all) still serves a purpose if you emigrated after September 15, 2015 at 15:15 p.m. (how do people think of it!). In all cases, they must settle the value of their company in the Netherlands in due course. For this group of taxpayers, the “remission” has lapsed after 10 years in the 2016 Tax Plan. We call this the “emigration leak of substantial interest holders”. In other words: even if you have been away from the Netherlands for 30 years, as a DGA / substantial interest holder you still have a tax debt in the Netherlands!

This was a shock from fiscal Netherlands that was noticed by few people, including many tax specialists!

In addition, the rule that settlement only needs to be made with a profit distribution of 90% or more also disappeared. For this group, tax must be paid (pro rata) on every profit distribution.

Of course there are alternatives that can limit the consequences of this amendment. However, it would take me too far to go into this in more detail in this context.

What also strikes me about Hansman's question and the responses to it is that not a word is said about the character of the protective attack. Does it contain:
a. a pension part;
b. an annuity part;
c. a significant interest
d. a combination of all this.

In a comment posted by Joop on November 12 at 18:56 PM, he all too easily assumes retirement, which cannot be bought off. But from nothing I can conclude that the protective assessment (only) contains a pension component.

The reader's question placed by Hansman contains too little information to be able to say anything meaningful about the protective assessment itself that he received.

Questions that then arise include:
a. what components does the preservative attack consist of;
b. was it prepared on the basis of a declaration by Hansman himself or is it an estimate by the Tax Authorities (due to the absence of a declaration);
c. In a self-declaration, sufficient account has been taken of non-taxable contributions and premiums for an annuity product which have not led to a reduction in the taxable income due to no or insufficient "annual margin";
d. Sufficient account has been taken of the judgment of the Supreme Court of July 14, 2017, in which major restrictions have been imposed with regard to the inclusion in the levy of negative expenditure on emigration in the case of annuity and pension claims in a protective assessment.

These are matters that I have absolutely no insight into and which are also difficult to deal with in a public blog, given privacy.
If questioner Hansman needs more information with regard to the above or to calculate his protective assessment, he can always contact me via my email address:
[email protected]