Taxing unrealized profits? — — The bill on the third-box tax regime for actual returns has been passed by the Dutch House of Representatives.
About a year ago, the issue of taxing unrealized gains for $MSTR was discussed; at that time MSTR was still dealing with book gains, and some people suggested that taxing this portion of gains might force MSTR to sell its held $BTC, whereas in reality the United States has no law taxing unrealized profits.
But just yesterday, the Dutch House passed the Box 3 reform, proposing to tax the “actual return” of savings or investments at about a 36% rate, and “actual return” includes price appreciation, which is taxation on unrealized gains.
Of course, it still needs to be approved by the Senate and is expected to be implemented in 2028.
The main points include:
A. Changing from “assumed return” to “actual return”.
Previously Box 3 taxed based on a “hypothetical return rate”; the core of the new bill is to turn Box 3 into a framework where tax is based on “real returns”, i.e., you pay tax on the amount of gain, not on the size of wealth.
B. Tax base = cash income + asset price changes (including unrealized gains and losses)
The newly defined “actual return” not only looks at interest, dividends, rent cash flows, but also incorporates the annual change in asset value.
Even if you haven’t sold, an increase in value counts as part of that year’s return. If it falls, it counts as a negative return.
Therefore it is interpreted as “taxing unrealized gains”; a more precise description is taxing the annual “asset appreciation or depreciation”. Of course, even book gains are taxable.
C. Tax rate around 36%, but it is not a 36% tax on assets
The 36% applies to the “taxable return” of Box 3, not to the principal or asset size. So if the return for the year is zero, theoretically there is no Box 3 tax, though in practice there are various details, exemptions and calculation thresholds.
D. Losses can be carried forward, but only within Box 3
To make “unrealized swings count” logically viable, the bill introduces a Box 3 loss mechanism: a negative return this year can be carried forward to offset future positive returns (usually with thresholds or limits), but it cannot be used against Box 1 salary income or Box 2 equity income.
In plain language, book losses can offset part of next year’s book gains, but it is not simply based on the calendar year.
E. Increased liquidity impact
The market’s biggest concern is assets rising but lacking cash to pay tax, forcing a sale. That is the issue to face.
F. Cryptocurrencies are explicitly included in the Box 3 asset category
If you are a Dutch tax resident, once this framework is implemented, holding BTC or ETH and other cryptocurrencies, the annual appreciation will enter the tax base. Of course, annual declines will count as losses.
Interpretation:
The biggest problem becomes that if this bill is implemented, for example Bitcoin rose in both 2023 and 2024, requiring taxes for two consecutive years, and to pay the tax you may have to reduce your position, only to find that in 2025 the price fell, resulting in a reduced position and paid taxes—losses on both sides.
Some may think this is good, as it forces you to reduce position and avoid potential loss next year, but what if the price continues to rise? For instance, in the 2023 tax year you sell $BTC to pay tax, and then in 2024 it rallies even more, forcing you to sell more BTC because of the tax.
Fortunately this is only in the Netherlands; if it were in the US, I think $MSTR would really be upset. Taxing unrealized profits is a bit unethical, but from another angle, unrealized profits can be avoided through collateralized lending, and perhaps more countries will adopt such schemes in the future.
@bitget VIP, lower fees, stronger benefits