Dutch tax incentives such as the innovation box and participation exemption have long been tools for tax efficiency. Under Pillar 2, however, these incentives can create permanent differences that trigger additional tax liabilities. For multinational groups operating in the Netherlands, understanding this interaction is critical.
Contents
Stay informed
We are happy to provide you with new (international) insights in the areas of finance, business operations, strategy, governance, risk, compliance and more.
The GloBE rules impose a minimum effective tax rate of 15% in each jurisdiction. Incentives that reduce taxable income may lower the effective tax rate below this threshold, resulting in a top-up tax. This means strategies that once delivered savings could now increase exposure.
Balancing Compliance and Efficiency
Our experts unpack these complexities and explain how to assess your group’s position. The goal is not to abandon incentives but to integrate them into a broader compliance strategy. By modelling the impact of Pillar 2 on Dutch regimes, you can:
Identify potential risks early.
Adjust structures to maintain efficiency.
Avoid unwelcome surprises during reporting.
Your Next Step
Watch Episode 3 of our video series for practical insights on managing Dutch tax incentives under Pillar 2. For tailored advice, contact our team. We are here to help.
The video is playing.This video is playing in mini-player mode.
The digitalisation of VAT compliance is accelerating across Europe. Since the EU's VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package entered into force in April 2025, businesses have entered a transition period that will ultimately lead to mandatory cross-border e-invoicing and digital VAT reporting across the European Union.
On 24 June 2026, the European Commission published a proposal for the so-called Direct Tax Omnibus. This proposal aims to simplify existing European tax directives, align rules more closely and reduce administrative burdens for businesses.
In its judgment in the Stellantis case (C603/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) determined that transfer pricing (TP) adjustments do not constitute payment for repair services due to the absence of a legal relationship and a direct link between the repair services and the TP adjustments.
