The coalition parties and the Council of Ministers are still holding on to the savings tax compensation | the interior

The question of who is entitled to a tax refund is now a rock in the belly of Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The tens of thousands of people who joined a case in which the Supreme Court torpedoed the savings tax would get the money back anyway. Last week, Van Rijn offered two options to expand this group: just offset the extra taxes on savings (costs: about 7 billion) or absorb investors (11 billion).

This question is also at the forefront of the consultations currently underway at the head of the Cabinet and the Coalition over the Spring Memorandum and the Billions of Budget Loopholes. So the coalition parties did not make their appearance in Wednesday’s Square 3 tax debate.

“We are still in discussions with each other,” VVD Edsenga told the Spring Memo Talks. He didn’t even want to give any direction as to the source of the compensation money. Idsinga said it would be “odd if we included other than savers in this compensation,” but we didn’t want to be constrained by that after further questioning.

D66 and CDA have been a little more open: as far as they are concerned, money should also be raised from the wealthy, eg from entrepreneurs in Box 2. “We don’t support taking it away from workers,” says CDA Representative Van Dyck.

PvdA and GL also make a point of this. If compensation money is not found in another form of wealth tax, the coalition “does not even have to communicate” with left-wing parties to support the budget, says PvdA MP Nijboer.

Clear

The opposition parties were more vocal anyway. Member of Parliament JA21 Eppink wants at least small savers to receive the money, even though it is legally difficult for tax authorities to characterize this group. He himself thinks of people who have “a piggy bank in addition to low income, who do not or hardly invest.” As far as the SGP MP Stoffer is concerned, every saver gets a cash back: “Paying taxes isn’t fun, and paying a lot certainly isn’t.”

In the discussion, VVD and D66 refer to a new Supreme Court case. In it, he asked someone who had not joined the large group of objectors to the savings tax ruling if they were also entitled to a refund. The ruling may have implications for the size of the tax group to be compensated. Rep. De Jong asks about the D66: “Could it be worth waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter?”

Secretary of State Van Rig sees something in this as well: “The advantage if you let the Supreme Court speak first, is that you know what the highest court thinks about it.” This can prevent the choice of a particular group that will receive the money from being immediately blown up by the highest court. Right now, it’s also making a difference in Spring Bill’s account. The Cabinet now only has to compensate the objectors and the unfinished declarations, which cost about 4 billion euros.