30% ruling

Тема в разделе "Финансы", создана пользователем Ann, 16 мар 2003.

  1. Ann

    Ann Новичок

    Здравствуйте все!

    Прочитала топики касаемо 30% рулинга, и у меня осталась пара вопросов:

    1. если первый работодатель не сделал его, возможно ли получить эту льготу при переходе к другому работодателю?

    2. может, кто-нибудь подкинет ссылки на документы, регламентирующие рулинг (на английском или голландском, без разницы)?

    Безмерно благодарна заранее за все отклики!
     
  2. Anna

    Anna Аксакал

    1. Сильно сомнительно. В последнее время уже несколько прецедентов было, когда при переходе на новую работу рулинг НЕ дают (хотя на предыдущей работе он был). К тому же курсируют упорные слухи, что это правило вскорости отменят, и в местных газетах уже стали появляться статейки про то, как обладатели этой льготы "жируют" по сравнению со всеми остальными рядовыми тружениками :( Хотя, "попитка не питка", попробовать можно. Если у чиновника будет неплохое настроение, может, и повезет :)

    2. Ссылки приводились уже неоднократно, причем в этом же разделе  :alien3:
    К сожалению, они  имеют свойство устаревать:( Поэтому рецепт такой: устроить поиск по слову 30% ruling в Google. Но, так как это документ весьма важный, то
    вот он (точнее, это вольный пересказ с комментариями; попробую попозже найти оригинал):

    The 30% ruling

    The Netherlands had a special tax regime for expatriates, the so-called 35% ruling, which provided for a reduction of taxable income equal to 35% of the employee's remuneration. In 1999, when the Dutch government issued the proposed changes to the Dutch income tax act {which entered into force 1 January 2001) , changes to the 35% ruling were announced as well. At that time no details were given, except that the 35% deduction would be reduced to 30%. On 24 October 2000 the Dutch government published the new proposed rules for the 30% ruling. The 'old' 35% ruling {dated 29 May 1995) was abolished on 1 January 2001. A summary of the new rules {which entered into force 1 January 2001 as well) is outlined below.

    According to the new rules, the employer may pay the employee a tax-free allowance that does not exceed 30% of his total remuneration. In addition, the employer may reimburse the fees paid for the employee's children to attend an international school tax-free. It is no longer possible to claim a deduction of school fees paid by the employee in the individual income tax return. Therefore, in cases where the employee pays the school fees himself, it is advisable to have the employer reimbursing the employee and to reduce the salary of the employee by amending the employment contract. Under the new 30% ruling, the effective top income tax rate in the Netherlands amounts to 36.4% {this is 70% of the new top rate of 52% for resident taxpayers) .For the year 2000 and before the effective top rate was 39% {this is 65% of the old top rate of 60% for resident taxpayers) .

    The 30% exemption does apply to the employee's employment income relating to the assignment to the Netherlands. Therefore, the 30% exemption can also apply to employment income which relates to work days spent outside the Netherlands provided that the Netherlands has the right to tax this income e.g. under a relevant tax treaty with another State. No exemption, ho.wever, is granted to severance and pension payments and income which is eligible for double tax relief. The new regulations also state that the 30% rulin~g only applies to regular payments. It is unsure whether this implies that for example -bonuses and share options are excluded. The explanatory notes indicate, however, that this restriction applies to severance and pension payments only.

    The explanatory notes also state that it is no longer allowed to split the gross salary mentioned in the employment agreement in a taxable part of 70% and a non-taxable part of 30%. This means, for example that if a gross salary has been agreed of EUR 100,000 per annum, that it is not allowed to pay EUR 30,000 tax free {and subject EUR 70,000 to tax) .In this example the salary agreed upon should be EUR 70,000 with an additional tax free allowance of EUR 30,000. As a consequence all existing employment agreements would need to be revised! For gross salary contracts there is a solution by changing the contracts. For employees with a guaranteed net salary, it is impossible to comply with this. For example assume an employee has a guaranteed net salary of EUR 60,000 per year. The gross salary is a question mark and is known by making a gross-up calculation. The outcome may vary from year to year depending on changes in tax rates, personal tax circumstances etc. Due to the unknown gross salary, it seems impossible to mention the tax free allowance in the contract separately and reducing the {net taxable) salary with an equal amount. Another complexity arises with employee stock options. At the time of grant it is unknown how much the stock option income will be. It is therefore unclear how the benefit of the 30%-ruling can be claimed on this type of income.

    It is no longer allowed to build up pension on the tax free allowance of 30%. This will have an enormous effect on employees who do have currently a pensionable base equal to their full gross salary. The explanatory notes also indicate that no social security tax is due on the 30% tax free allowance. For employees with a gross annual income (including the 30% tax free allowance) of less than roughly EUR 60,000, the benefits for unemployment and disability will be based on the income excluding the tax free allowance. Employees with a gross income exceeding EUR 60,000 are not affected, since 70% of this amount exceeds the maximum income for social security tax purposes.

    We have discussed the issues mentioned above with the competent tax inspector. He was not able to provide further clarification. Given the enormous complexity and administrative problems for employers and employees we hope that these new requirements will be abolished.

    Reimbursement of double household cost can no longer be reimbursed tax free in addition to the 30% tax free allowance. It is deemed to be included in the 30% tax free allowance. Under the old regulations, the double household cost could be reimbursed free of income tax for a period of maximum two years in addition to the tax free allowance of 35%.

    The exemption is available for a period of 10 years. This is only five years, if the employee no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 4 below (if the date -at which the conditions are no longer met -occurs more than 5 years after the arrival in the Netherlands, the exemption will be no longer applicable as of the date the conditions are no longer met) .The new law stipulates that after a period of 5 years the tax authorities can request that the employer demonstrates that the employee still meets the conditions. The period can then, on joint request of employer and employee, be continued up to the full period of 10 years. The tax authorities cannot request this if the employer has demonstrated himself that the employee still meets the conditions at the beginning of the sixth year.

    The maximum period of 10 years is reduced by the duration of any previous stay or previous period of employment in the Netherlands. A reduction of the maximum period will not be taken into account if the expatriate has not stayed or worked in the Netherlands during the 10 years preceding the arrival date in the Netherlands.

    In order to qualify for the 30% ruling, the following conditions have to be met.
    The employer must make a reasonable case that the employee possesses special expertise which is not available or scarce on the Dutch labour market.
    The employee must be recruited from abroad.
    The employer is a Dutch wage tax withholding agent or tax withholding agent if it has one or more employees Netherlands and is keeping the payroll administration and has notified itself with the tax inspector.
    The new law stipulates that an employee who meets all of the following 3 conditions will automatically meet the specific expertise test:
    The employee has been transferred within an international group for the purpose of job rotation.
    The employee has been working with the group outside the Netherlands for a period of at least 2.5 years.
    The employee belongs to the middle or high management of the company.


    In principle, the employee must have been recruited from abroad. An exception to this requirement is made if the employee changes from one domestic employer to another, provided that the employee still meets the other conditions of the ruling in his new employment and that the new employment commences within 3 months after the termination of the old employment. As compared with the original proposed new rules a change was made, which seem to include a typo. One could read the new rules as such that a person who is recruited while present in the Netherlands -but hired by a non-Dutch legal entity, which subsequently seconds the individual directly to the Netherlands -would be able to qualify. We have discussed this with the competent tax inspector. He agreed that this could be read as such but he feels that this was not the intention and will therefore not accept this position.

    In the following situations there is a Dutch withholding agent for wage tax purposes:
    The employee is employed by a Dutch company.
    The employee is employed by a foreign company, which has a permanent establishment in the Netherlands.
    The employee is employed by a foreign company, which does not have a permanent establishment in the Netherlands. However, the Dutch tax inspector considers the foreign employer as a wage tax withholding agent at the foreign company's notification.
    In order to make optimal use of the 30% ruling, it is necessary that all the employee's remunerations (including items which are paid from abroad such as bonuses etc.) are included in the Dutch payroll administration. In other words, where it was possible in the past to claim the benefit of the 35%-ruling in the individual income tax return on items which were not processed in the Dutch payroll, under the new rules this is not possible anymore.

    As opposed to the 'old' 35% ruling, a specific time frame is mentioned in the new law. The application for the 30% exemption should be filed within 4 months of the date of the employee's arrival in the Netherlands. If the application is not filed within 4 months, the 30%-ruling becomes effective as of the first day of the month subsequent to the month in which the application has been filed. The request must be made jointly by the employee and the new domestic employer with the tax authorities in Heerlen.

    Under the 'old' 35% ruling a seconded employee who is a resident taxpayer of the Netherlands could elect to be treated as a "deemed non-resident" for the entire 10 year period of the ruling. As a consequence, the employee is subject to Dutch tax on specific sources of income and wealth only (e.g. world-wide employment income, Dutch real estate) . The new Income Tax Act provides for the possibility that the Ministry of Finance sets rules which also allow for this election. The new rules provide -generally speaking -for same result as the current rules (i.e. the employee is subject to Dutch income tax on specific sources of income only (e.g. world-wide employment income, Dutch real estate; passive income such as interest from saving accounts continues to be exempt from Dutch income tax) .There are two major differences with the old 35% ruling. Firstly, under the new rules the election to be treated as a deemed non-resident can be made from year to year (i.e., it is possible to elect to be treated as a deemed non-resident in the first year and in the subsequent year as resident taxpayer) .The election must be filed with the tax inspector and always becomes effective on the first day of the calendar year in which the election has been filed. Secondly, the employee is entitled to personal deductions (such as alimony payments) even if the election for deemed non-residency has been made. This was not possible under the old 35%-ruling.

    Employees who have been granted a previous 35% ruling, will not be eligible to continue this after 31 December 2000. The 'old' 35% ruling will be abolished. The competent tax inspector has informed us that he expects that all existing 35% rulings will be converted automatically into a '30% ruling' .The duration of the 30% ruling will be equal to the remaining period applying to the old 35%-ruling on 31 December 2000.

    Важное
    примечание относительно пенсии:

    Dutch tax saving scheme, exchange salary for tax-free reimbursement like computer and or bike, in combination with the 30% ruling can give risk for accrual of pension.
    For (extraterritorial) employees who have been sent to the Netherlands from abroad, the Implementing Decree Wages Withholding Tax Act has a special (extraterritorial) payment for the special allowance ruling (30%- ruling). Until the 1st January 2001 this special ruling (then it was named the 35%- ruling) was still included in the basic salary for the pension scheme. From the 1st of January 2001 this is not longer allowed, because free reimbursements/payments do not belong to the basic amount for the pension scheme.
    On 26 November 2001 the government designed an interim solution. This means that 30% situations that are in place on 1 July 2002, the 30% reimbursement will still count for the pension scheme.
    For employees who are unable to use this solution, a ruling has been made on 22 February 2002. This ruling approves the accruing of a pension over the 30%- reimbursement. However, because of the 30%- reimbursement and several other mentioned free reimbursements, the salary used for the accruing of a pension can only differentiate in a limited way from the actual earned (fiscal) wage (exclusive of the mentioned free reimbursements).
    If this solution still does not result in the including of the 30%- reimbursement for the accruement of a pension, the extraterritorial employee may be able to use the flexible areas between the fiscal rulings and the pension scheme. The extraterritorial employee who want to use the facilities of the tax saving system of changing salary for f.e. a bike and or computer, should realize that he can jeopardize his pension plan.



    <!--EDIT|Anna|16 Мар.  2003,15:43-->
     
  3. Anna

    Anna Аксакал

    Дополнение.

    Много информации по 30% рулингу на английском можно найти на
    этом сайте.

    Вот
    текст закона о 30% рулинге на английском языке.

    BULLETIN OF ACTS AND DECREES 640
    Decree of 20 December 2000 for the Amendment of Several Implementation Decrees
    Article II
    The 1965 Implementation Decree for Wage Tax is amended as follows:
    SECTION 3 FREE REMUNERATION AND PROVISIONS (SECTION IIA OF THE
    LAW); EXTRATERRITORIAL EMPLOYEES
    Article 8
    1. In this section and the schemes based on it the following definitions apply:
    2. These are the following:
    a. extraterritorial employees: employees who have entered or were transferred out of the
    country;
    b. entered employee: employee hired in another country by an employer or sent to an
    employer in the sense of Article 2 of the Act, with a specific expertise that is scarce or
    absent on the job market in the Netherlands;
    c. transferred employee: employee in the sense of Article 2 of the Act, transferred by an
    employer abroad with the intention of
    1°. placement as official with a delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands abroad (post);
    2°. employed as official, judicial officer or military personnel on the Dutch Antilles or Aruba;
    3°. employed as military personnel outside the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
    4°. employed in a region designated by ministerial order in accordance with Our Minister of
    Development Cooperation;
    5°. the exercise of scholarly activities or the provision of education;
    4. Officials at a post are
    a. officials transferred by the Foreign Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, being
    officials who are appointed to work anywhere in the world;
    b. officials of the Foreign Service who have not been transferred but who have been
    temporarily seconded to a post;
    c. officials of other ministries who are employed at a post;
    d. military personnel and civilian personnel of the Ministry of Defence who have been
    transferred to a post, as well as flag officers and general officers who are transferred on
    international staffs abroad;
    e. employees who on the basis of an employment contract under civil law work at a post
    after transfer from the Netherlands.
    5. The exercise of scholarly activities or the provision of education is defined as follows:
    a. the pursuit of research outside the Netherlands funded by
    1°. a grant or scholarship from a Dutch organisation for scientific research or a foundation
    for the scientific research of the tropics;
    2°. a NATO fellowship;
    3°. comparable grants, scholarships and fellowships designated by Our Minister;
    b. being transferred abroad as teacher or scholarly practitioner by an educational or
    scientific institution or invited abroad by such an institution located abroad, with the
    purpose of providing education there at an educational or scientific institution or
    conducting scientific research for such an institution.
    6. Tuition fees are payments for children of the extraterritorial employee to participate in
    primary or secondary education at international schools and international departments of noninternational
    schools, up to the amounts charged by the school according to its rates for
    education, with the exception of costs and accommodation expenses but including travelling
    expenses.
    Article 9
    1. Remuneration and provisions to extraterritorial employees to compensate or prevent
    expenses outside the country of origin shall, with respect to employees arriving at the joint
    request of the employee and the employer, in any case be considered remuneration for
    extraterritorial expenses up to
    (proof scheme):
    a. thirty percent of the basis, this being the sum of the wage received regularly associated
    with the stay outside the country of origin to the extent the entered or transferred employee has
    no right in this regard to prevent double taxation, and remuneration for extraterritorial expenses;
    b. the amount of the tuition fees.
    2. In the case of provisions, the valuation schemes shall apply pursuant to Article 13 of the
    Act.
    Article 9a
    1. For the evaluation of whether an entered employee possesses specific expertise that is
    scarce or absent on the job market in the Netherlands, account shall be taken of the
    interrelationship of the following factors, to the extent relevant:
    a. the level of education of the employee;
    b. the experience of the employee relevant to the position;
    c. the salary of the function concerned in the Netherlands in comparison to that in the
    country of origin of the employee.
    2. An employee of middle management or higher of an international concern with at least
    two and a half years experience in that concern who is sent in the framework of job circulation to
    the Netherlands, shall be considered to have specific expertise that is scarce or absent on the job
    market in the Netherlands.
    Article 9b
    1. For entered employees the term of the proof scheme is a maximum of ten years, starting
    on the first day of employment by the employer.
    2. For transferred employees the term of the proof scheme is equal to the term of the
    transfer.
    Article 9c
    1. Should an entered employee have another employer during the term, the proof scheme
    shall remain in force at the joint request of the employee and the new employer for the remainder
    of the term, providing the period between the end of employment by the former employer and the
    start of employment by the new employer is no longer than three months.
    2. For such a request the new employers shall demonstrate anew that the employee is to be
    designated as an entered employee.
    Article 9d
    1. Should the entered employee no longer possess specific expertise that is scarce or absent
    on the job market in the Netherlands, the term shall be reduced to the time this situation arises but
    be no less than five years.
    2. Starting the sixth year of the term the tax inspector may require the employer to
    demonstrate that the employee must still be considered an entered employee.
    3. Should the employer demonstrate as from the sixth year of the term that the employee
    should at that time still be considered an entered employee, section two shall no longer apply for
    the remaining term.
    Article 9e
    1. Should an entered employee have worked or stayed in the Netherlands prior to the start of
    employment, the term shall be reduced by the periods of prior employment and prior stay.
    2. Periods of prior employment and prior stay that terminated more than fifteen years before
    the term of employment shall not be taken into account.
    3. Periods of prior employment and prior stay that terminated by more than ten years but less
    than fifteen years prior to employment shall not be taken into account if the entered employee has
    not worked or stayed in the Netherlands for a period of ten years.
    4. For application of section three the entered employee will not have worked in the
    Netherlands if he worked in the country for a maximum of twenty days in every calendar year for
    the period of ten years.
    5. For application of section three the entered employee will not have stayed in the
    Netherlands if in every calendar year of the period of ten years he did not stay in the Netherlands
    for a total of six weeks for holiday, family visit or other personal circumstances, with a one-off
    period not being taken into account of at most three consecutive months in the Netherlands for
    holiday, family visit or other personal circumstances.
    Article 9f
    If a request by the employer for application of the proof scheme as stipulated in Article 9h is not
    made within four months after the start of employment of the entered employee, the term shall be
    reduced by the period between the time when the entered employee is employed by the employer
    and the time when the decree, stipulated in Article 9h applies for the first time.
    Article 9g
    In the event of reduction of term pursuant to this section, a period for which the term is reduced
    shall be rounded up to full calendar months.
    Article 9h
    1. A request for application or continued application of the proof scheme with respect to an
    entered employee shall be made to the tax inspector. He shall decide on the request for a decision
    that is eligible for objection.
    2. Should the request be made within four months after the start of employment as an
    extraterritorial employee by the employer, the decision shall be retroactive to the start of
    employment as extraterritorial employee. If the request is made later, the decision shall apply
    starting the first day of the month following the month in which the request is made.
    EXPLANATION
    Article 15a, part k of the Wage Tax Act of 1964, as it reads since 1 January 2001, states that
    extra costs incurred reasonably during a temporary stay outside the country of origin, known as
    'extraterritorial costs,' are part of the free remuneration. It also stipulates that groups of
    employees designated by an Order in Council that are employed from outside the Netherlands or
    are sent by an employer outside the Netherlands, it can be decided under conditions set in due
    course that remuneration of costs incurred staying outside the country of origin are considered at
    least as remuneration for extraterritorial costs of up to thirty percent of the wage, and the
    remuneration for extraterritorial cost, as well as up to the amount of the tuition fees to be
    designated. For employees from outside the Netherlands, this proof scheme is stipulated in section
    3 of the 1965 Implementation Decree for Wage Tax for ten years at most. The proof scheme
    expands on a number of decrees that applied until 1 January 2001, that is, the Decree of 29 May,
    1995, no. DB95/119M, BNB 1995/243 (the 35 percent scheme), the Decree of 7 december 1999,
    no. IFZ99/1060M, BNB 2000/72 (the Nedeco scheme), the Decree of 15 September 1993, no.
    DB93/2527M, V-N 1993, page 2957, (Dutch diplomates abroad), the Decree of 2 June 1988, no.
    88-1160, BNB 1988/201 (the DGIS scheme), the Decree of 9 August 1961, no. Bl/12 635, BNB
    1961/346 (to officials seconded to the Dutch Antilles and Aruba) and the Decree of 16 December
    1997, no. IFZ97/1563, BNB 1998/60 (the NWO scheme). To the extent terms and concepts are
    used in section 3 under discussion that are not defined or discussed as differing, they have the
    same meaning as they have acquired for application of the aforementioned decrees pursuant to the
    policy and decisions concerned.
    Except for where the text of the articles stipulates otherwise, Section 3 applies to all categories
    designated for extraterritorial employees, and therefore to employees who enter as well as those
    who are transferred.
    Article 8 gives definitions. For section two, part b, a connection is made with the old 35 percent
    scheme. Part c, under 1° provides for Dutch diplomats abroad and other persons who were
    covered previously by the Decree of 15 September 1993, no. DB93/2527M, V-N 1993, page
    2957. Part c, under 2° concerns officials and military personnel seconded to the Dutch Antilles
    and Aruba who were covered previously by the Decree of 9 August 1961, no. Bl/12 635, BNB
    1961/346 or the Decree of 15 September 1993, no. DB93/2527M, V-N 1993, page 2957, while
    the part under 3° concerns other transferred military personnel. Part c, under 4° concerns
    development staff and other employees who are seconded by private organisations or
    governmental agencies, previously falling under the Nedeco scheme or the DGIS scheme. The
    condition is that they are transferred to a region that is designated in this context. It stands to
    reason that in the first instance the regions are designated that were also designated under the
    Nedeco scheme, that is
    - the countries of Asia (including Hong Kong and the part of Turkey east of the Bosporus);
    - the countries of Africa;
    - the countries of Latin America (including the Dutch Antilles and Aruba);
    - the following European countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-
    Herzogovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, the Federal Republic of Jugoslavia (Serbia
    and Montenegro including Kosovo), Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, the former Jugoslavian republic of
    Macedonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Poland, Rumania, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Slovakia, and
    the Czech Republic. The concept of transfer means that the employee also stays in the country
    concerned. Part c, under 5°, concerns employees who were covered previously by the NWO
    scheme.
    Section three is derived from the Nedeco scheme.
    Section four is based on the Decree of 15 September 1993, no. DB93/2527M, V-N 1993, page
    2957, as well as the Foreign Service Benefits System (Decree of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
    30 December 1992, no. HDBZ/AB-844/92, last amended by the Decree of 12 December 1999,
    no. HDPO/BO/AR-1086/99). To the extent the proof scheme in question offers, unlike the
    Decree of 15 September 1993, no. DB93/2527M, V-N 1993, page 2957, insufficient space for
    free remuneration of all extraterritorial costs actually incurred, the excess can nevertheless be
    remunerated, only not on the basis of the proof scheme concerned but according to the basic rule
    of Article 15a, part k, of the Act. Section five is derived from the NWO scheme. Section six,
    concerning tuition fees, is derived from the older 35 percent scheme.
    Article 9, section one, contains the proof scheme as such. This provides that the remuneration to
    extraterritorial employees of costs of staying outside the country of origin is considered in any
    case as a free remuneration for extraterritorial costs to an amount equal to the sum of thirty
    percent of the basis and the amount of the tuition fees.
    The basis is the sum of the wages and the remuneration for extraterritorial costs. Wages are in this
    connection the regular pay for extraterritorial work during the period of extraterritorial
    employment. Payments that are not related directly, such as pension benefits and golden
    handshakes, do therefore not belong to wages in this connection. The technique used here was
    adopted from the old 35 percent scheme. The condition is that the employee and employer submit
    a request jointly to the tax inspector for application of the proof scheme, according to the rules of
    Article 9h.
    Remuneration for extraterritorial costs is concerned here. This means that such remuneration must
    be agreed separately from the wage. The administrative division of the wage into a wage part and
    a remuneration part is therefore not possible. An actual division of the wage is conceivable in the
    sense that it is lowered by action of employment law, affecting pension and social security
    accordingly with the simultaneous conferral of a cost remuneration. The foregoing implies that a
    pension cannot be built up on extraterritorial cost remuneration, nor is this possible on other
    forms of cost remuneration.
    These matters apply analogously to provisions to prevent extraterritorial costs. These are taken
    into account according to their market value. The proof scheme thus applies to remuneration and
    provisions together. Section two contains a practical scheme that prevents valuation problems for
    provisions for which market value is or will be determined in the 2001 Implementation Decree for
    Wage Tax. For the proof scheme (remuneration to thirty percent is considered remuneration for
    extraterritorial costs) it is important to know whether a given expense belongs to the
    extraterritorial entries or to a different category. Moving costs, for example, belong to
    extraterritorial costs and therefore do not fall outside the thirty percent scheme; if they belong to
    another cost category, they can be remunerated outside the proof scheme. For the rest, the
    distinction is just as important outside the proof scheme: costs standards and limitations can apply
    after all to costs other than extraterritorial costs.
    The main rule that applies here, as has always been the case for mixed costs, is that costs must be
    considered belonging to the most likely category, the most specific cost entry. The moving costs,
    which were taken as example, could perhaps also be seen as extraterritorial, but fall under the
    specific cost entry of 'moving' expenses of Article 15a, part g, of the Wage Tax Act of 1964. The
    character of moving house as such does not change when an employee moves for the sake of his
    job, not elsewhere in the Netherlands but abroad. Moving expenses can therefore be remunerated
    freely in addition to the thirty percent of the proof scheme. This applies to all costs that are not to
    be considered extraterritorial costs. Extraterritorial costs are expenses that an employee would
    not have incurred had he not been transferred or had entered for an extended period (but rather
    temporarily). Costs that he would have incurred in the same employment in his own country are
    not extraterritorial costs. An ambulatory employee who can have the expenses involved with the
    ambulatory nature of his work (travelling and accommodation expenses) remunerated free
    according to the applicable rules, even if he becomes an extraterritorial employee through
    transfer, but remains ambulant abroad. The extraterritorial status of the employee does not
    transform these costs into extraterritorial costs, so that the costs of being ambulant can be
    remunerated according to the schemes that also apply to local employees. Examples include the
    twenty-day scheme for determining whether or not an employee is ambulant.
    In some cases doubt may arise concerning whether a certain type of cost should be considered a
    primary extraterritorial cost. If an employee retains his home in the country of origin and obtains
    accommodation in the country of employment, he would have good reason to claim
    extraterritorial costs providing he can demonstrate that the costs concern housing outside his
    place of residence in the sense of Article 15b, section one, part j of the Wage Tax Act of 1964.
    The obvious course in such cases is to make the choice of the most specific entry according to the
    question of where the origin of the costs predominantly lies (in fiscal terminology predominantly
    means over fifty percent). The free remuneration of costs of moving outside the place of residence
    is limited to two years owing to the private aspect that also appertains to the refusal to move to a
    new place of employment. In the case of transfer to another country the situation is different: the
    problem is not so much not wanting as not being able. This consideration makes the character of
    the costs of double accommodation predominantly extraterritorial. This case results on the one
    hand, that one is not bound for the free remuneration to the period of two years for housing
    outside the place of residence, and on the other hand, that costs of double accommodation fall
    inside the proof scheme of thirty percent and cannot therefore be remunerated freely beyond this
    figure (except to the extent it is demonstrable that extraterritorial expenses total more than thirty
    percent, in which case the proof scheme is disregarded and the actual costs are taken into account
    for remuneration). The same applies if an employee shifts his residence to the country where he is
    transferred. Any extra costs of accommodation, whether or not independent, are in such situations
    extraterritorial costs that fall under the thirty percent proof scheme.
    The point of departure that the costs should be calculated to the most specific cost entry, as
    worked out above, leads in terms of the costs entries stipulated in Articles 15a and 15b of the Act
    to the following conclusions. Minor expenditure and work clothes are expenses incurred in the
    country of origin as well and therefore constitute no extraterritorial costs. Under the relevant
    schemes, the costs of work clothes are therefore eligible for the free remuneration (and provision,
    which is not discussed further below) and the costs of other clothes are not. Expenses for
    representation, courses and suchlike, musical instruments and other equipment are also incurred in
    the country of origin and are therefore not extraterritorial costs.
    An exception applies to integration courses and courses in the language of the country of
    employment: the most specific entry for this category is that of the extraterritorial costs. The
    employee would not after all have taken such courses had he not entered or been transferred. The
    'moving' entry was already discussed above, when the conclusion was drawn that this is not an
    extraterritorial entry. The fees for training or studies are not extraterritorial costs either, with the
    possible exception of training that relates specifically to the transfer, which point was already
    discussed above in connection with courses. A right to private travelling by public transport is so
    specific that it falls exclusively under Article 15a, part i. Transport to and from stops for public
    transport are related to commuter traffic and should therefore be considered the same as the
    commuter traffic itself (see below).
    Commuter traffic in a country that is comparable in this respect to the Netherlands falls under the
    relevant entries of Article 15b, section one, part a (regular commuter traffic) and b, (commuting
    by car) and therefore constitutes no extraterritorial costs. If local circumstances, however, are
    such that it may be assumed that the entries in the aforementioned stipulations would be
    formulated differently if these circumstances had occurred in the Netherlands, the costs would be
    considered more as extraterritorial costs than costs for commuting, so that the majority principle
    implies that they should fall under the extraterritorial entries. The same applies to day care
    centres: in comparable situations they fall under the day care centre entry; if the situation is
    different, they are extraterritorial costs. In the latter case they fall under the thirty percent proof
    scheme; if this does not apply, they can be remunerated free without limit. Meals, company
    fitness, work areas at home, telephone subscriptions, personal care and personnel associations are
    so specific that they do not come under extraterritorial costs. Accommodation outside the place
    of residence has already been discussed, and it was concluded that this expense is an
    extraterritorial cost. In conclusion, WAZ premiums, wage tax and social security premiums, fines,
    crimes, armaments and dangerous animals are so specific that they cannot be considered
    extraterritorial entries.
    Concerning the question of whether the proof scheme tallies with the equality principle for both
    the thirty percent level of the proof scheme and the limitation to designate certain categories of
    employees, the following should be taken into account.
    The thirty percent scheme is the successor of the 35 percent scheme and the Nedeco scheme. In
    both cases a level of 35 percent was maintained, which has since been reduced to thirty percent.
    This level, which was negated by actual costs when they were higher, proved on the one hand to
    be sufficient in many cases. On the other hand, extraterritorial costs were incurred, particularly by
    representatives of the Crown abroad, that exceed thirty percent. Thus, there is and remains a
    number of cases for which the proof scheme is inadequate, and the actual costs thereby come into
    question. Under the new scheme this number will not increase. The picture presented is inherent
    to the fixed tax-deduction scheme under discussion. Characteristic of the deduction is that it is too
    high for the one employer and too low for the other. The desire to give the deduction as large a
    range as possible has led to the setting of the percentage as too high rather than too low. The
    possibility of proof to the contrary increases still further the practical importance of a relatively
    high level. As a result, fewer employees are forced to resort to proof to the contrary, which is also
    in the practical interest of the tax authorities. This point will be discussed further.
    With respect to limiting the proof scheme to certain groups of employees, it should be borne in
    mind that a scheme concerning content is not concerned, but rather a proof scheme. It is evident
    that employees who fall under the proof scheme as well as those that do not may be subject to
    extraterritorial costs. For certain categories (scarce experts who stay in relevant areas for more
    than 45 days), however, it is acceptable in advance that there will be such costs, as experience has
    shown. For them the thirty percent proof scheme applies. This does not change the fact that all
    other employees are free to demonstrate that they have extraterritorial expenses, if necessary to a
    level of thirty percent or more. This situation also applies to extraterritorial employees who are
    subject to the proof scheme. The regulation can therefore work to the disadvantage of no one. At
    most, some may derive a certain advantage from the thirty percent proof scheme. As already
    pointed out, however, this is inherent to a fixed tax-deduction scheme such as this, which by its
    very nature may offer too much to the one and too little to the other, in which case the actual
    costs are refundable tax free. The inequality that can arise here, in the sense that some obtain too
    much but no one too little, is justified by the requirement of the practical applicability of the tax
    laws. Any unequal treatment is thus justified by a good and objective reason.
    Article 9a prescribes the factors that should at least be taken into account when evaluating the
    question of whether an entered employee has specific expertise that is scarce or absent on the job
    market in the Netherlands. This provision is based on the old 35 percent scheme.
    Article 9b, section one, sets the terms of the proof scheme for entered employees in accordance
    with the old 35 percent scheme at a maximum of ten years. For longer periods of employment the
    main scheme of Article 15a, part k of the Act applies. According to section two, the term of the
    proof scheme for transferred employees is equal to the duration of the transfer period. A
    maximum of ten years does therefore not apply, which was not the case for the old Nedeco
    scheme either.
    Article 9c, section one, provides that if the entered employee changes employer within ten years
    after his first period of employment, he can submit, together with his new employer for the
    remaining term of employment, a new request for application of the proof scheme. If the
    application is accepted, the employee will be able to take advantage of the scheme for a maximum
    of ten years. Under section two, this is possible only if the employee still possesses scarce, specific
    expertise. This means an extra check to confirm the scarce, specific expertise of the employee.
    Obviously, the employee can still be considered to have been recruited in, or sent from another
    country. The last sentence of section one provides that a request to continue the proof scheme
    cannot be complied with if the employee has taken over three months to find other employment.
    The reason for this is that the expertise of the entered employee would then be manifestly less
    scarce, so that he would no longer qualify for application of the scheme, while in that case the
    employee could not be considered as entered with respect to the new employer.
    Pursuant to Article 9d the term of the proof scheme is reduced if the entered employee can no
    longer be considered as such because his expertise is no longer scarce. This may be the result, for
    example, of developments on the job market. The proof scheme no longer applies from the time it
    emerges that the entered employee is no longer scarce. The minimum term, however, is always
    five years, unless it is shorter than five years owing to another discount scheme. The maximum
    reduction of the term is therefore five years. The reason for this is that for practical
    considerations, the scarcity can be considered to exist for the first five years of the term.
    Section two provides that the tax inspector can request the employer to demonstrate from the
    sixth year of the term that the employee is still scarce. The burden of proof therefore lies with the
    employer.
    According to section three, as from the sixth year of the term an employer can also demonstrate at
    his own initiative that the employee should still be considered an entered employee. If the
    employer succeeds in this effort, the tax inspector cannot apply section two. In this way the
    employer and the entered employee are assured of the application of the decree to the remainder
    of the term. As under the old scheme, I have no objection to this check being used marginally in
    both cases.
    Article 9e provides that the term is reduced for entered employees if the employee had already
    stayed or worked in this country at a time that did not immediately precede employment with the
    employer. In this way the situation is reached in which the scheme is not applicable, or that the
    term is shortened for employees who stayed or worked in the Netherlands in the past. This article
    was derived from the discount scheme used in the old 35 percent scheme. Section one provides
    that the term is reduced by the periods of previous residence or employment.
    Section two provides that periods of previous residence or employment that preceded present
    employment longer than fifteen years are not eligible. This mitigation of the effects of section one
    is included to facilitate implementation of the discount scheme.
    Section three provides that periods of previous residence or employment that are shorter than
    fifteen years but longer than ten years that preceded present employment by the employer, are not
    taken into account if the employee did not stay or work in the Netherlands in that period of ten
    years. This provision as well mitigates the effect of section one. Section three means that in the
    event an employee stayed or was employed in the Netherlands during this period of ten years prior
    to employment by the employer, in addition to this period, periods or a stay of employment prior
    to the ten year period will be subtracted from the term.
    Section four provides that certain short periods of previous employment in the Netherlands do not
    negate mitigation of section three. Section four is thus another mitigation of section three. An
    employee can work a maximum of twenty days in the Netherlands without being subject to a
    discount; this relaxation has proven necessary in practice with respect to the maximum of five
    days that applied previously. It should be pointed out that these periods of employment must be
    subtracted from the term, pursuant to section one.
    Section five provides that certain periods of previous stays in the Netherlands for holiday or the
    like, do not cancel relaxation of section three. Section five, like section four, is thus a mitigation
    of the effect of section three. It should be pointed out that these periods of employment must be
    subtracted from the term, pursuant to section one.
    Article 9f provides that for entered employees the term is reduced if the request to apply the proof
    scheme is not submitted within four months after the employer first employs the extraterritorial
    employee.
    Article 9g provides that all reductions of the term are rounded up to full calendar months. The
    reason for this is that Section 3, as in the case of the old 35 percent scheme, fits a monthly
    framework for practical considerations. The result of this is that if the term must be shortened by
    a few days pursuant to one of the aforementioned articles, the term is shortened under Article 9g
    by a month. If the term is to be shortened by another period, this period would likewise have to be
    rounded upward to a whole calendar month, etc. This approach prevents uncertainty on the
    application of the discount in the event an employee was employed in the Netherlands from
    abroad in the past for one day per week for a year. In that case 52 weeks (and hence twelve
    months) would be deducted and not 52 days. What is concerned here is continuation of the
    existing arrangement.
    Article 9h provides rules for the request for application or continued application of the proof
    scheme. Such a request must under section one be submitted to the competent tax inspector. For
    transferred employees, this is the inspector 'of' the employer; for entered employees, as is now the
    case, the BPO inspector abroad would be designated for this purpose. The inspector decides on
    the request by a decision that is eligible for objection.
    According to section two, the decision issued by the inspector would have retroactive effect to
    the start of employment as extraterritorial employee by the employer, providing the request is
    made within four months after the start of this employment. If the request is made later, the
    decision would apply starting the first day of the month following the month in which the request
    is made.

    Тот же expatax вроде бы
    предлагает свои услуги по запросу 30% рулинга.
     
  4. Ann

    Ann Новичок

    Анна, спасибо Вам огромное!
     
  5. Anna

    Anna Аксакал

    Дополнительная тема (про 30% рулинг и обмен прав) перенесена в "Быт".



    <!--EDIT|Anna|1053379985-->
     
  6. Stasia

    Stasia Новичок

    Подскажите пожалуйста.. Мне мой HR говорит, что 30% рулинг действует только для expat contracts, которые:

    Expat contracts are specifically for short term assignments.

    а у меня local Dutch contract

    так ли это?? а то что-то я не нашла упоминания про такие контракты в тексте...
     
  7. Anna

    Anna Аксакал

    Это, мягко говоря, неправда.

    Лично у меня постоянный контракт и 30% рулинг, на предыдущей работе было то же самое.
     
  8. Stasia

    Stasia Новичок

    а я сама могу подать заявление на рулинг и что в этом случае требуется от работодателя?
     
  9. Woodman

    Woodman Завсегдатай

    Можно полностью удовлетворять формальным критериям, но, если у работодателя нет желания делать рулинг, то дело дрянь  :angry:
    По крайней мере, мне было заявлено, что у них, дескать, политика такая и исключения делать они не намерены.
     
  10. Anna

    Anna Аксакал

    К сожалению, заявление на рулинг может подавать только работодатель, а Вы должны на этом заявлении расписаться, что не возражаете, чтобы Вам этот рулинг выдали. И если потом работодатель поменяется, то рулинг приходится оформлять заново, так как на документе о 30% рулинге пишется, что он выдается работнику такому-то, работающему на таком-то предприятии, т.е. эта льгота "привязана" не просто к Вам, а к Вам в качестве работника этого конкретного предприятия. В общем, без доброй воли работодателя его никак не получить.
     
  11. Ton

    Ton Старожил

    Ну а какова реальность? Получил ли кто нибудь из здесь присутствующих этот рульнг в течении последних пары месяцев?
     
  12. Anna

    Anna Аксакал

    Есть один реальный случай переоформления старого рулинга на нового работодателя в начале этого года.
     
  13. Vladimir

    Vladimir Новичок

    Считайте что есть второй такой реальный случай (мой), тоже в начале
    этого года. При этом рулинг обговаривался изначально при обсуждении
    контракта.
     
  14. hondje

    hondje Новичок

    Я знаю по крайне мере 5 человек переоформивших рулинг в этом году с марта по август. Все прошло гладко.
     
  15. SashaZ

    SashaZ Модератор

    И я знаю пару-тройку людей переоформивших себе рулинг на новом рабочем месте после увольнения со старого. :look:
     
  16. dekan

    dekan Новичок

    Кто нибудь знает номер телефона 30% отдела в налоговой?
     
  17. Anna

    Anna Аксакал


    Informatiecentrum Belastingdienst Buitenland

    Телефоны:
    Судя по тому, что написано на сайте налоговой, Лимбургский офис - единственный, занимающийся вопросами 30% рулинга.
     
  18. Stas

    Stas Аксакал

    Так и есть - все иностранцы с рулингом стоят на учете не по месту жительства, а в landelijk kantoor in Heerlen.
     
  19. Vlad

    Vlad Активный форумчанин

    Может кто нибудь объяснить, как все таки считается 30% рулинг?

    Например зарплата до 30% рулинга брутто - 2700
    Казалось бы должны разделить на 1890 для налогов и 810 как 30% надбавка.
    Ан нет. В ведомости стоит 1900 для налогов и 798,53 - vergoeding 30% regeling.
     
  20. kosta

    kosta Аксакал

    Я так думаю, что, в целях налогообложения, всё округляется в пользу налоговой, а не в пользу налогоплательщика. Вот и всё.
     
  1. Blume
  2. Alleen
  3. Nenarokom
  4. Yuri
  5. ncux

Поделиться этой страницей

Загрузка...