hrservices.be banner

Tools

PwC service offerings

Tags

accounting treatment Belgium capital-sharing company cars crisis measures double tax treaty employee employees employment tax EU Regulation 883/2004 exemption fiscal benefit Flanders foreign income HR environment HR Services Human Resources income tax indexation India Lambermont life insurance marital quotient system pensions personal income tax private PC profit-sharing profit participation PTX registration duties salary slips salary tresholds second company car severance pay social security treaty stock option stock option income tax taxation tax reduction tax reform tax treatment Uruguay withholding tax work permit

Site search

RSS RSS – HRS Headlines

Sharing knowledge
The Tax Guide in De Tijd/L'Echo was created with the help of our Personal Tax Consultants

Calculate your car policy’s VAT cost

09Mar

Tax prepayments: no substitute for wage withholding tax

 

As you know, similar to salaries paid to employees, directors’ fees are subject to wage withholding taxes. To the extent that the wage taxes withheld do not cover the final income tax due on the directors’ fees, a tax increase will apply (section 157 BITC). This will be the case for instance if a person has a directorship in two or more companies. Directors who want to avoid such increase can make voluntary tax prepayments.

According to a recent decision in Belgian case law (Court of Appeal), company directors cannot choose to pay their income taxes solely by way of tax prepayments because the system of wage withholding taxes is a compulsory system. The payment of wage withholding taxes cannot be replaced by making tax prepayments. If the company does not withhold (sufficient) wage withholding taxes, the tax authorities are entitled to claim the (remaining) withholding tax due from the company.

Moreover, if no (or insufficient) wage taxes are withheld, the tax authorities may want to consider this as a taxable benefit in kind in the hands of the company director. Although previous decisions under Belgian case law (lower courts) do not agree with this view, the above recent decision (Court of Appeal) tends to follow the tax authorities’ viewpoint (tax charge on the benefit in kind) and also seems to be backed up by an (already older) decision of the Belgian Court of Cassation (1992).

Share