The Netherlands plans to levy capital gains tax on crypto assets starting in 2028, with an annual loss of 2.3 billion euros to be promoted through approval

2026-01-22 12:32:13

Abstract generation in progress

【BitPush】The Dutch House of Representatives has recently been engaged in intense discussions regarding the proposed overhaul of the Box 3 tax system. This reform plan will take effect from 2028, and it will tax the income from assets such as cryptocurrencies, stocks, and bonds—whether realized or unrealized—on an annual basis.

Honestly, many lawmakers have criticized the plan for its loopholes, and taxing unrealized gains has also sparked controversy. But the issue is that delaying implementation could result in the Netherlands losing approximately 2.3 billion euros in tax revenue each year. Therefore, despite the skepticism, this proposal is likely to gain majority support in the parliament.

For those holding crypto assets in the Netherlands, it’s time to plan ahead. Whether the market goes up or down, as long as the assets are in your account, you will need to pay taxes annually starting from 2028.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

HypotheticalLiquidator

· 01-22 13:02

Profits also taxed? This is systemic risk. The health factor is plummeting... There is still time until 2028, but once the dominoes start falling, no one can stop the chain reaction of liquidations.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingersPaper

· 01-22 12:58

I haven't even cashed out yet and I have to pay taxes? This is ridiculous. Even unrealized gains are taxed? The Dutch government must be crazy. 2028 is not far away, I need to run or dump everything before the airdrop... If not, I have to think of other ways. They really treat us like sheep to be sheared, huh.

View OriginalReply0

IntrovertMetaverse

· 01-22 12:57

This tax is really outrageous, even unrealized gains are taxed? Doesn't that mean I have to get cut twice? 2028 is still early, but now it's time to consider relocating. The Dutch government would do anything for that 2.3 billion euros. Real estate is taxed, and cryptocurrencies are taxed too. There's no way out now. I should have moved long ago; the Netherlands is becoming increasingly unfriendly.

View OriginalReply0

DisillusiionOracle

· 01-22 12:54

Do unrealized gains also have to be taxed? The Netherlands really outdid themselves this time. Haven't even made a profit yet, and they're taking a cut first.

View OriginalReply0

Layer2Observer

· 01-22 12:52

Oops, here comes another bizarre design of "taxing all unrealized gains." Analyzing this logic from the source code level, it seems a bit convoluted. --- With the figure of a 2.3 billion euro loss on display, even if lawmakers oppose it, they still have to vote in favor, everyone knows that. --- This is outrageous. Taxing unrealized gains on paper? Technically, how complicated would that operation be? --- Is the Netherlands trying to "write code" with taxes? It seems like it could create a bunch of unintended consequences. --- Considering all factors, it's best to move assets out before 2028 or carefully calculate the costs... This plan changes the risk parameters for holders. --- Really, just to fill a 2.3 billion gap, they insist on taxing unrealized gains. An interesting discovery is that no one has figured out how this will affect trading activity.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHustler

· 01-22 12:51

2028 is coming to harvest the leeks, Netherlands' move is really clever, even unrealized gains are taxed? Do I have to pray that the coin keeps falling?

View OriginalReply0

RumbleValidator

· 01-22 12:49

The Netherlands' recent move is really incredible. Taxing unrealized gains? Isn't this essentially punishing coin holders indirectly? The pressure from a 2.3 billion euro shortfall is indeed significant, but relying on investors to cover it is a bit excessive.

View OriginalReply0