Dutch policymakers floated a 36% tax on unrealized gains in Box 3. Stocks, bonds, crypto. Annual mark-to-market from 2028, according to NL Times and Bloomberg Tax.
That was enough.
Founders called their tax advisers. Family offices pulled out structure charts. Exit timelines that felt comfortably distant suddenly looked uncomfortably close. The real fear wasn’t the rate. It was liquidity. How do you pay tax on gains that exist only on paper?
Then the proposal stalled.
The new Cabinet stepped back, uneasy about taxing unrealized appreciation. Opposition came from across the Dutch ecosystem: startup envoys, tech founders, banks including ABN AMRO Bank N.V. The sticking point was obvious. Plenty of people in the Netherlands are asset-rich and cash-poor. A strict mark-to-market system risks forcing sales just to cover the bill.
There’s a familiar rhythm to this.
Courts strike down old wealth tax formulas. Governments scramble to plug the revenue gap. The quickest fix on paper is a mark-to-market regime. On paper, it looks clean. In practice, balance sheets are messier than that.
For internationally mobile families, the Dutch debate is a useful case study. A proposal can surface quickly, trigger real behavioral change, and then be softened once the consequences become clearer.
The conversation is shifting. It’s less about picking the best-performing manager. It’s about resilience. If another major market introduces its own version of Box 3, how would your current holding structure cope?
That was enough.
Founders called their tax advisers. Family offices pulled out structure charts. Exit timelines that felt comfortably distant suddenly looked uncomfortably close. The real fear wasn’t the rate. It was liquidity. How do you pay tax on gains that exist only on paper?
Then the proposal stalled.
The new Cabinet stepped back, uneasy about taxing unrealized appreciation. Opposition came from across the Dutch ecosystem: startup envoys, tech founders, banks including ABN AMRO Bank N.V. The sticking point was obvious. Plenty of people in the Netherlands are asset-rich and cash-poor. A strict mark-to-market system risks forcing sales just to cover the bill.
There’s a familiar rhythm to this.
Courts strike down old wealth tax formulas. Governments scramble to plug the revenue gap. The quickest fix on paper is a mark-to-market regime. On paper, it looks clean. In practice, balance sheets are messier than that.
For internationally mobile families, the Dutch debate is a useful case study. A proposal can surface quickly, trigger real behavioral change, and then be softened once the consequences become clearer.
The conversation is shifting. It’s less about picking the best-performing manager. It’s about resilience. If another major market introduces its own version of Box 3, how would your current holding structure cope?