Debt is the element of a Dutch property structure that most often ends up in the wrong place. The asset is selected with care, the vehicle is selected with care, and then the loan is documented wherever the lender’s template happened to sit. Some years later the interest expense sits in an entity with no rental income, the security package does not reach the cash flow that services it, and what should be a routine refinancing becomes a restructuring. The mechanics of financing Dutch real estate through a BV are not intellectually difficult; they are simply unforgiving of decisions taken as an afterthought.
Where the debt sits
The first question in any Dutch property financing is not how much leverage the asset supports but which company borrows. A group holding Dutch real estate typically has at least two layers: a holding BV and one or more property BVs, each owning a building or a portfolio segment. Debt can be placed at either level, and the choice determines whether the interest expense meets the rental income inside the same taxpayer.
Dutch corporate income tax is charged on a two band table. Article 22 of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969, in the version in force since 1 January 2026, sets the rate at 19 per cent on the first 200,000 euro of the taxable amount and at 25.8 per cent on the excess. Interest is deductible against the profit of the company that incurs it, subject to the limitation rules discussed below. If the loan sits in a holding BV whose only income is benefits from subsidiaries, and those benefits fall under the participation exemption of article 13, which applies from an interest of at least 5 per cent of the nominal paid-up capital, the interest expense faces exempt receipts. The point deserves care, because article 13 disallows the costs of acquiring or disposing of the participation itself but not the cost of funding it: the interest remains deductible in principle, and the problem is not the deduction but the absence of taxable income to absorb it. The company has a cash cost it must fund from elsewhere. This is the classic mismatch, and it is entirely avoidable at the outset.
Two structural answers exist. Debt can be pushed down to the property BV, so that interest and rent arise in the same entity. Alternatively, a fiscal unity can be formed, consolidating results for corporate income tax purposes so that interest incurred at the top is set against rental profit generated below. The conditions are exacting, and the first of them is territorial: under article 15, paragraph 4, letter c both taxpayers must be established in the Netherlands, and where the Belastingregeling or a double tax treaty applies to one of them, that taxpayer must also be deemed established in the Netherlands under it, unless the separate permanent establishment conditions of paragraph 8 are met. Beyond that, article 15, paragraph 1 requires the parent to hold the entire legal and economic ownership of at least 95 per cent of the nominal paid-up capital of the subsidiary, representing at least 95 per cent of the statutory voting rights and conferring in all cases entitlement to at least 95 per cent of the profit and of the assets, and both taxpayers must request it. Each route carries consequences. Push-down constrains the upward movement of cash, because the lender will restrict distributions by the borrower. A fiscal unity engages article 39 of the Invorderingswet 1990, under which each subsidiary is jointly and severally liable for the corporate income tax levied from the unity over a period in which it formed part of it, and it has its own entry and exit mechanics. The answer must be selected deliberately, in the light of how the group intends to hold and eventually dispose of the asset, a question we develop in our note on holding European real estate through a Dutch structure.
One vehicle can be ruled out at the start. The fiscale beleggingsinstelling of article 28 of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969 was for years the natural wrapper for a property portfolio, and since 1 January 2025 it no longer is. Article 28, paragraph 2, letter a now makes it a condition of the regime that the body does not invest in Dutch immovable property within the meaning of article 17a, letter a, and equally that it does not invest in debt claims on a body holding such property where the return on the claim is usually, in law or in fact, mainly connected with income from that Dutch property. The second limb matters as much as the first, because it closes the obvious workaround of holding the building through a taxable body and taking the economics back up as interest. The version of article 28 in force for 2024 contained no such bar, so structures conceived before that change need to be read again rather than assumed.
Asset deal, share deal and the transfer tax overlay
Where the debt sits is shaped by how the property was acquired. A direct purchase places the asset in the buying company and permits a mortgage over it immediately. An acquisition of shares in a company that already owns the property leaves the existing debt, and the existing security, in place until it is refinanced.
Dutch real estate transfer tax now has three rates rather than two. Article 14 of the Wet op belastingen van rechtsverkeer, as it applies from 1 January 2026, sets a general rate of 10.4 per cent, a rate of 8 per cent for the acquisition of a dwelling or of rights to which a dwelling is subject, and a rate of 2 per cent where a natural person acquires a dwelling and will use it other than temporarily as a main residence, provided that person declares this clearly, firmly and without reservation in a written statement made before the acquisition in accordance with article 15a. The 8 per cent band is new: for 2025 the same law knew only the general rate of 10.4 per cent and the 2 per cent main residence rate, so a dwelling acquired to let was taxed at 10.4 per cent and is now taxed at 8. The 2 per cent rate is closed to acquisitions of shares, and the 8 and 2 per cent rates extend to appurtenances acquired at the same time as the dwelling.
Critically, the acquisition of shares can itself fall within the charge, but only on conditions that need stating rather than summarising. Under article 4, paragraph 1, letter a, shares in a legal person are treated as immovable property where, at the time of acquisition or at any time in the preceding year, its assets consisted for the greater part of immovable property and at the same time at least 30 per cent of its assets consisted of immovable property situated in the Netherlands, provided that the immovable property taken as a whole was then wholly or mainly serving the acquisition, disposal or exploitation of that property. Even then, article 4, paragraph 3 charges tax only where the acquirer reaches a threshold interest: at least one third for a legal person, counting connected bodies, and for a natural person at least one third counted together with a spouse, relatives in the direct line and the second degree of the collateral line or a connected body, together with an interest of more than 7 per cent held alone or with a spouse. A share deal is therefore not automatically a route around the tax, nor automatically within it, and the analysis must be completed before the shape of the transaction is fixed. The same analysis feeds the financing, because a lender pricing a share acquisition wants to know whether the exposure has been quantified and where it lands.
The value added tax overlay runs through the same articles and repays being followed to the end. Article 15, paragraph 1, letter a exempts from transfer tax an acquisition under a supply within article 11, paragraph 1, letter a, under 1, of the Wet op de omzetbelasting 1968, that is, the supply of a building or part of a building with its adjoining land before, on or at the latest two years after first use, and the supply of building land, or under a service within the closing words of article 11, paragraph 1, letter b, on which value added tax is due. The exemption falls away where the asset has been used as a business asset and the acquirer can deduct that value added tax in whole or in part. Article 15, paragraph 6 then restores it, but only where all three of its conditions are met: the acquirer can deduct, the acquisition takes place within six months of first use or of the earlier commencement of a letting, and the acquisition is recorded in a notarial deed executed within that period. Article 15, paragraph 11 removes both on the acquisition of shares in a legal person within article 4, paragraph 1, letter a, where not applying the exemption results in indirect taxation of the value of immovable property in the value added tax sense, and then only to the extent that the property is used, for at least two years after its acquisition, for activities carrying less than a nearly full right of deduction. Where that happens, article 14, paragraph 8 substitutes a rate of 4 per cent for the general and dwelling rates. That combination has applied since 1 January 2025 and has no counterpart in the 2024 text, which is precisely why a share purchase of a recently completed building is now modelled rather than assumed.
The security package
Dutch lending against real estate follows a settled pattern, and the three principal elements are best understood as securing three different things. The mortgage over the property secures the asset itself. Article 3:260, paragraph 1 of Book 3 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek requires both a notarial deed executed between the parties and its registration in the public registers, and the deed must identify the claim secured, or the facts from which that claim can be determined, and state the amount for which the mortgage is granted or, where that amount is not yet fixed, the maximum amount recoverable from the asset. That last requirement is why the mortgage is commonly granted for an amount exceeding the principal, so as to leave room for interest and costs. Registration is also what establishes ranking: under article 3:21, paragraph 1 the order of registrations affecting the same registered asset is determined by the order of the moments of registration, unless the law provides otherwise, and ranking in turn determines outcomes on enforcement. One element comes with the mortgage automatically, since article 3:229 gives the mortgagee a pledge by operation of law over all claims for compensation that take the place of the encumbered asset, including claims for its depreciation, ranking above any other pledge created over those claims.
The pledge over the shares in the property BV secures the entity rather than the asset, and gives the lender the option of taking control of the company instead of forcing a sale of the building. Article 2:198, paragraph 1 of Book 2 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek permits a pledge over shares unless the articles of association provide otherwise, and article 2:196, paragraph 1 requires a deed executed before a civil law notary practising in the Netherlands for the creation of a limited right over a share. The voting position is the opposite of what is often assumed. Under article 2:198, paragraph 2 the shareholder retains the vote on pledged shares. The vote passes to the pledgee only where article 2:198, paragraph 3 is satisfied, that is, where it was stipulated on creation of the pledge, whether or not subject to a condition precedent, or agreed in writing afterwards, and the pledgee is a person to whom the shares may be freely transferred; where the pledgee is not such a person, the arrangement also requires approval by the corporate body designated in the articles or, failing such designation, by the general meeting. This is a governance question as much as a security one, and it has to be drafted rather than left to the standard form.
The pledge of rental receivables secures the cash flow, and the question it raises is whether tenants must be notified. Article 3:239, paragraph 1 allows an undisclosed pledge to be created by authentic deed or by registered private deed, without notification to the tenants, provided the claim already exists at that moment or will arise directly from a legal relationship already in existence, which is the reason future rent under leases not yet signed sits outside it. Article 3:239, paragraph 3 then gives the pledgee the power to notify where the pledgor or the debtor fails in its obligations or gives the pledgee good ground to fear that it will, and expressly allows the parties to agree that this power arises at another moment. The practical answer therefore differs before and after an event of default because the statute makes it differ, and because the facility agreement is free to move the line. Related items are normally caught by the same instrument, among them hedging receivables, claims against contractors and bank account balances.
The three interlock. A mortgage without a receivables pledge leaves the lender able to sell the building but unable to control the income until it does. A share pledge without a mortgage places the lender behind anyone holding registered security over the asset. A financing that lacks an element tends to show it in pricing or in tighter covenants.
Interest deductibility follows the income, not the intention. A structure that places the borrowing where the rent is not collected has already made its most expensive decision.
Covenants and what they are actually for
Covenant packages in property financing serve two purposes: to give the lender information early, and to give it leverage before value is lost rather than afterwards. Understood conceptually rather than numerically, they fall into recognizable families.
Financial covenants test the relationship between debt and value, and between income and debt service. The first family compares outstanding debt to the appraised value of the property; breach is typically curable by prepayment or by posting cash, and the lender’s right to commission a fresh valuation, together with how often it may do so, matters as much as the threshold itself. The second family compares net rental income to interest, or to interest plus scheduled amortization, over a defined period, measured backwards or projected forwards. Definitions do the real work: what counts as net income, whether capital expenditure and letting costs are deducted, and how vacant units and rent-free periods are treated.
Beyond the financial tests, the package addresses the property directly. Restrictions on disposals and on granting further security are standard. Letting covenants govern which leases may be signed without consent and on what terms, and they carry a tax dimension where the letting has been opted into the charge to value added tax, because article 11, paragraph 1, letter b, under 5, of the Wet op de omzetbelasting 1968 makes that option available only where the tenant uses the property for purposes carrying a full or nearly full right of deduction and where landlord and tenant have opted in the written lease or jointly requested it. A tenant who does not meet that test changes the economics of the building, not merely its rent roll. Insurance, maintenance and regulatory compliance obligations run alongside. A cash control mechanism, sweeping surplus income into amortization once a trigger is breached, is a common alternative to outright default. Change of control provisions protect the lender’s underwriting of the sponsor as well as of the asset.
Interest limitation and the earnings base
The Dutch earnings stripping rule lives in article 15b of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969. It denies deduction of the balance of interest to the extent that the balance exceeds the higher of two amounts: 24.5 per cent of the corrected profit, or one million euro. The balance of interest is interest expense on loans less interest income on loans, and it is set at not less than nil. The corrected profit is the profit determined without applying the rule, increased by depreciation and by write-downs to lower going concern value, net of their reversals, and increased by the balance of interest itself, and it too is set at not less than nil. Two points about the parameters are worth fixing, because modelling against remembered figures is where this rule causes damage. The percentage has moved: it was 30 per cent when the rule was introduced for 2019, 20 per cent from 2022 through 2024, and 24.5 per cent for 2025 and again for 2026. The fixed amount has not moved at all: it has been one million euro throughout.
The rule reaches third party and related party debt alike, because article 15b defines a loan simply as a receivable or debt arising from a loan agreement or a comparable agreement, and draws no distinction by lender. An arm’s length bank facility receives no exemption. This is stricter than the European floor it implements. Article 4 of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices requires only a 30 per cent limit, and permits Member States to allow a threshold of 3,000,000 euro, to exempt standalone entities entirely, and to offer group equity ratio or group ratio escapes. The Netherlands has legislated below the percentage, has taken neither the standalone exemption nor either group escape, and took the de minimis amount only to set it at one million euro, a third of the figure the directive would have allowed.
For a property structure the consequences are direct, and the question every reader of this article will ask is whether a real estate letting company is treated differently. It is not. The text of article 15b in force for 2026 contains no separate regime for a vastgoedlichaam, and neither did the text in force for 2025: a company letting property to third parties is tested on exactly the footing described above, with the full one million euro available to it. Rental businesses are capital intensive and frequently geared, which is precisely the profile the rule reaches, and the absence of a special rule is a feature of the position rather than an oversight. Where a fiscal unity exists, article 15 treats the companies as one taxpayer, so the test applies at the level of the unity, which may help or hurt depending on the composition of the group. A disallowed balance is carried forward indefinitely under article 15b, paragraph 5, deducted in the order in which the balances arose and only to the extent that the later year’s own balance falls short of its limit, and fixed by the inspector in a decision open to objection. That capacity is fragile: article 15ba forfeits balances arising before a substantial change in the ultimate interest in the taxpayer. Carried forward capacity is not deduction. The interaction with the choice of borrowing entity is immediate, and we set out the mechanics in our analysis of the Dutch interest deduction limitation.
Intra-group debt and article 8b
Where the group funds the property BV itself, whether directly or by on-lending the proceeds of an external facility, the loan must be priced and documented at arm’s length. Article 8b of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969 imposes that requirement without a threshold, wherever one body participates directly or indirectly in the management, control or capital of another, or the same person does so in both, and paragraph 3 obliges those bodies to keep in their records the data showing how the transfer prices came about. Master File and Local File obligations are separate and do carry thresholds: article 29g, paragraph 4 applies them to group entities of a multinational group with at least 50,000,000 euro of consolidated group revenue in the preceding reporting year, and article 29c, paragraph 5 sets country-by-country reporting aside below 750,000,000 euro. The underlying arm’s length standard applies to every taxpayer irrespective of size.
Characterization is where financing articles most often blur three different rules, and they are worth keeping apart. Article 10, paragraph 1, letter d denies the borrower a deduction for the remuneration on a loan, and for value movements of the loan, where the loan was entered into on such terms that it in fact functions as equity of the taxpayer. Separately, the Hoge Raad held in its judgment of 25 November 2011 on the unbusinesslike loan that the civil law form is in principle decisive, subject to three exceptions in which a loan is treated as capital: a loan in appearance only where the parties in fact intended a contribution of capital, a loan on terms that give the creditor a degree of participation in the debtor’s business, and a loan advanced in circumstances in which it must already have been clear to the lender that the amount would not or not fully be repaid. Outside those three, and this is the distinction that matters, a loan that no independent party would have granted on the stated terms remains a loan. The consequence falls on the lender, not the borrower: the loss on writing it down may not be deducted from the lending company’s profit, and the court added that the debtor risk on interest left unpaid falls the same way. For the interest itself the court set a rule of thumb, namely the rate the affiliated company would have to pay if it borrowed from a third party under a guarantee from the group company on otherwise identical terms, so that interest continues to be recognised rather than stripped out. Whether a loan is unbusinesslike is judged at the moment it is entered into, subject to a businesslike loan becoming unbusinesslike later through the creditor’s conduct, and it is judged for the loan as a whole rather than in parts.
Article 10a addresses something different again. It denies deduction of interest, including costs and currency results, on debts owed in law or in fact, directly or indirectly, to a connected body or connected natural person, but only to the extent those debts are connected with one of three tainted transactions: a profit distribution or repayment of capital, a capital contribution, or the acquisition or extension of an interest in a body that becomes a connected body as a result. The connection may exist even where the debt was incurred after the transaction. Two escapes follow in paragraph 3, and they are the working part of the article: the taxpayer may show that predominantly business considerations underlie both the debt and the related transaction, or that the recipient of the interest is subject on balance to a profit or income tax that is reasonable by Dutch standards, which the article defines as a levy of at least 10 per cent on a taxable profit determined by Dutch standards.
In practice the intra-group loan must be capable of being described as something an independent lender would have entered into. Tenor, currency, ranking, security, covenants and the borrower’s capacity to service the debt all feed the rate. Contemporaneous documentation, prepared when the loan is made rather than when it is questioned, is the practical defence; we examine the obligation in our note on transfer pricing under article 8b.
The payment side deserves equal attention. The conditional withholding tax of the Wet bronbelasting 2021 reaches interest only where it is owed by a Dutch established withholding agent, or by a foreign one to the extent the expense is attributed to a Dutch permanent establishment, and only where that withholding agent is affiliated with the recipient of the interest. The recipient must then fall within article 2.1, which covers bodies established in a low-taxed jurisdiction, bodies attributing the interest to a permanent establishment in such a jurisdiction, and, among others, bodies entitled to the interest with the avoidance of tax at another as a main purpose in an artificial arrangement. A low-taxed jurisdiction is one designated by ministerial regulation because, on 1 October of the calendar year preceding the period concerned, it did not subject bodies to a profit tax or did so at a rate below 9 per cent, or because it appeared on the European Union list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes in force in that preceding calendar year. The rate is not a separate figure to remember: article 4.1 sets it at the highest percentage of article 22 of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969, which is 25.8 per cent for 2026. Where interest leaves the Dutch borrower for a related creditor, the residence and treatment of that creditor is part of the structuring, not a detail to be resolved at the first payment date.
Designing for the refinancing, not the closing
Property debt is refinanced repeatedly across the life of an asset, and each refinancing tests the decisions taken at the outset. A structure in which the borrower holds a single asset, grants a clean security package and carries no unrelated liabilities is straightforward to refinance and to sell. One in which debt, security and income sit in different entities, or in which the borrower has accumulated intra-group balances of uncertain characterization, is neither. The cost of correcting that later is measured in transfer tax exposure, lender consent processes and elapsed time.
Montclare structures and operates Dutch and cross-border platforms for international groups. Our services are set out on our services page.
This article is informational and does not constitute tax, legal or investment advice. Each engagement is subject to scope and applicable regulation.