The Netherlands has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[1]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2024 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.
The Netherlands can legally issue four types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.
In practice, the Netherlands issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:
Type of ruling | Number of rulings |
Past rulings | 2206 |
Future rulings in the period 1 April 2016 – 31 December 2016 | 287 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2017 | 214 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2018 | 272 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2019 | 403 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2020 | 263 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2021 | 299 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2022 | 234 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2023 | 258 |
Future rulings in the year in review | 280 |
Peer input was received from ten jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from the Netherlands. The input was generally positive, noting that overall information was complete, in a correct format and received in a timely manner.
1. The Netherlands can legally issue the following four types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; and (iv) permanent establishment rulings.
2. For the Netherlands, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.
3. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the Netherlands’ undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that the Netherlands’ review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Netherlands’ implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
4. The Netherlands has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.
5. The Netherlands has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. The Netherlands notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.
6. The Netherlands has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including: (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) bilateral agreements in force with 101 jurisdictions.2
7. In the peer input process in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from the Netherlands, two peers indicated that information included in the summary section of Annex C of the Action 5 report (OECD, 2015[3]), although following the standard provisions, was not sufficient for their risk assessment. The Netherlands has considered the peer input and indicated that it has followed the FHTP guidance on completing the exchange templates. Therefore, no recommendation is made.
8. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:
|
Future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework |
Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted |
Delayed exchanges |
||
|
Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority |
Reasons for the delays |
Any other comments |
||
|
674 |
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
Follow-up requests received for exchange of the ruling |
Number |
Average time to provide response |
Number of requests not answered |
|
7 |
24 days |
0 |
9. In the prior year’s peer review report, it was determined that the Netherlands’ process for the completion and exchange of templates was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further was required. The Netherlands’ implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
10. The Netherlands has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. The Netherlands has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.
11. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:
|
Category of ruling |
Number of exchanges |
Jurisdictions exchanged with |
|
Ruling related to a preferential regime |
541 |
Algeria, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Costa Rica, Curaçao, Czechia, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Macau (China), Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Viet Nam |
|
Cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles |
111 |
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Ghana, Hong Kong (China), India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Tunisia, Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States, Viet Nam |
|
Cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts |
03 |
N/A |
|
Permanent establishment rulings |
22 |
China (People’s Republic of), Curaçao, Guernsey, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States |
|
Related party conduit rulings |
0 |
N/A |
|
IP regimes: total exchanges on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets, new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption |
Included in ‘rulings related to a preferential regime’ |
N/A |
|
Total |
674 |
12. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the Netherlands’ information gathering and exchange of information processes for matters related to intellectual property regimes4 were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Netherlands’ implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved | Recommendation for improvement |
No recommendations are made. |
← 1. 1) Innovation box and 2) International shipping.
← 2. Participating jurisdictions to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. The Netherlands also has bilateral agreements with Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Sint Maarten, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
← 3. From 1 July 2019, a new ruling policy is in place which no longer allows rulings with regard to unilateral downward adjustments to be concluded. However, taxpayers can opt for a unilateral downward adjustment in their tax return without a ruling (which information the Netherlands exchanges with other jurisdictions). From 1 January 2022, a downward adjustment on the basis of the arm’s length principle in the tax base of the taxpayer in the Netherlands will be limited to the extent that the amount of corresponding upward adjustment included in the tax base of the other entity involved in the transaction is none or too low.
← 4. Innovation box.