The Belgian tax saga surrounding cryptocurrencies has taken a disappointing new turn. What seemed to be a historic opportunity to finally bring clarity to the tax treatment of capital gains on cryptocurrencies has turned into a missed opportunity during the last cycle of negotiations on the coalition agreement of Wever I. Hopes concerning the proposal for uniform “solidarity contribution” of 10 percent on all gains, which they result from normal or abnormal management of private heritage, minute.
Although I have not yet been able to read the legal text, the distinction between normal and abnormal management is maintained is maintained, as well as the higher rate of 33 percent for speculative gains. As a tax lawyer, I already see the files flowing, but as a citizen, I can only deplore this missed opportunity for legal security. The projects that gave hope at the beginning of 2025 promised an essential simplification. A general solidarity contribution of 10 percent on capital gains from January 1, 2026, regardless of normal management (AB), would finally end ambiguity on what is exactly taxable as “normal management” compared to “abnormal management”. This distinction, which in practice is as vague as the fog of one morning in November, caused the frustration of investors in cryptocurrencies for years. Is it speculative to carry out transactions a few times a year? What happens if you invest a significant part of your wealth in cryptocurrencies? Or if you perform an intelligent operation that allows you to make a substantial profit? No one knows exactly, because there is practically no case law to guide you. The taxman, still eager for additional income, therefore has all latitude to qualify the capital gains as speculative and claim 33 percent.
The government had a unique opportunity to eliminate this arbitrariness. A uniform rate of 10 percent – except for persons carrying out professional and professional income transactions – would have brought not only legal security, but also confidence in the Belgian tax system. Instead, the Government opts for a status quo which only feeds the greed of the tax authorities. Those who declare their capital gains to 10 percent are properly exposed to an evaluation in which the taxman will fatally demand 23 percent additional, on the pretext that the transaction was “speculative”. The 10 percent as a control tool. The result? A potential flood of tax discussions and disputes on the normal or not nature of the transaction. An almost impossible task, since the criteria are so vague in practice, the interpretation comes down to the arbitrariness of the listener.
Politicians do not seem to understand the practical consequences of their choice of compromise. Maintaining the rate of 33 percent for abnormal management is not a neutral decision; It is a choice that perpetuates the legal uncertainty and digs the gap between citizens and tax authorities. In practice, this will result in more disputes, more stress for investors and-let’s face it-more work for lawyers like me. But where the tax profession wins, it is society as a whole that loses. Legal certainty is the cornerstone of an equitable tax system, and by sticking to an outdated and vague distinction, the government spoils this opportunity.
The crypto investor is found in a tax shadow area, where each transaction is a potential mines field. The stricter controls provided for in 2026 by the European DAC8 directive, which obliges cryptocurrency platforms to declare transactions, will only increase pressure. The tax authorities will obtain more data, but in the absence of clear rules, it is difficult to know what will be taxed at 10 percent and what will be 33 percent. The result is a system that seems not only complex, but also fundamentally unfair. As a citizen, I can only be indignant. It was the time to disentangle the tax skein surrounding the crypto-active. Instead, the government opts for a halftone solution that leaves the door wide open to discussions and disputes. The only winners? Lawyers who will have to fight against tax disputes for the years to come.
But for the crypto investor in Belgium compared to other Member States, it is a bitter pill to swallow. It could have been different, and it should have been otherwise.
Dave Van Moppes, partner and lawyer at Tuerlinckx Tax Lawyers.
