What can the Netherlands do to not look like a tax haven
The Netherlands must come up with measures to get off the tax haven list, but how? This is being discussed in the European Parliament. Much is not uncertain.
However, the Netherlands does not see itself as a tax haven, other European countries do. What can we do? ‘I think it’s best to be transparent about what you do, actually say what happens and what happens and why you do what you do or don’t do,’ says professor of International Tax Law and partner at Lubbers, Sjoerd Douma.’
Also read | Wopke Hoekstra under fire for investments in tax haven
The designation as a tax haven also comes with some consequences for our country on the geopolitical playing field, as Douma also knows. What you have to stand up for is that regulations that are rightly tightened do not go overboard and remain clear. Moving on to, for example, unclear regulations. Regulations are sometimes made too much in haste, and you can now see that in a recent European proposal. It is very unclear how regulation should be applied. And that leads to a lot of legal uncertainty for many companies.’
Ratio
Douma identifies yet another risk for pressure or negative publicity as a tax haven. ‘The relationship between companies and the tax authorities’, he continues. ‘What you observe over time is that the latter relationship is hardening and becoming more businesslike. That can be good, but certainly not always.’
Also read | Bankers, wildebeest and tax havens
Douma also thinks it will be a challenge to maintain the – currently still – good relationship between companies and the tax authorities. ‘I certainly think that the Dutch tax authorities are a very good tax authorities compared to other tax authorities. But I do think it’s a challenge to keep it that way, and that the conversation that’s going on continues. That no fear response of retreating movement can be seen.’
regulation
A speaker in the European debate, professor Jan van der Streek, argued for the regulation of tax advisers. Other speakers were critical. Bouma mainly asks herself which problem it solves. ‘I am not against it either, because the profession of lawyer is also regulated. But the question is, what problem are you solving? I think the problem that Van der Streek identifies is that he wants more attention to ethics among tax advisors and to bring about a moral change among tax advisors. But can you achieve that through regulation of the profession? I think you might also see it as a reaction, namely a lawyer-oriented attitude of more lawyers. Stand even more firmly behind the importance of their questions. Perhaps be a little more aggressive in the advice. I’m not against regulation, but I’m not convinced it will solve a problem.’