The Netherlands has gazetted Decision No. 2026-14582 of 30 July 2026, updating the Decree on Administrative Fines of the Tax and Customs Administration (BBBB) to introduce temporary penalty relief for the first Minimum Tax Act 2024 reporting period (through 31 October 2026), a new DAC9 information-return penalty regime, and a sharp rise in DAC8 cross-border fines from EUR 27,500 to EUR 1,100,000.
The Netherlands has gazetted Decision No. 2026-14582 of 30 July 2026 on 7 August 2026, bringing amendments to the Decree on Administrative Fines of the Tax and Customs Administration (BBBB). These changes primarily adapt the administrative penalty rules to support the implementation of three major European directives: the Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax (Directive (EU) 2022/2523), DAC8 (Directive (EU) 2023/2226), and DAC9 (Directive (EU) 2025/872).
The key measures are as follows:
Temporary relief for the first Pillar Two reporting period
The first reporting period under the Minimum Tax Act 2024 is marked by international implementation hurdles and system-technical startup challenges. Because multinational group entities are highly dependent on the timely exchange of data from the global top-up tax information return, the Netherlands has introduced a temporary penalty waiver:
- Late-filing penalty relief: No default penalty applies for late filing of obligations under Article 14.3 WMB 2024, for any filing due on or before 31 October 2026.
- Late-payment penalty relief: Same cutoff applies to late payment: no default penalty for obligations under Article 14.3 WMB 2024 through 31 October 2026.
- Intent-based penalties untouched: The rules on intent-based penalties aren’t changed by this relief. The reasoning: the startup problems with the new system make it unreasonable to pin intent on a taxpayer who pays late right now, so an intent-based penalty won’t hold up even without a specific carve-out.
- Expiration date: This relief is strictly temporary. Effective 1 November 2026, these temporary relief clauses are deleted. Consequently, any WMB 2024 returns filed or payments made after 31 October 2026 that are late will be subject to standard default penalties.
New penalties for DAC9 / Pillar Two information return
The Decision introduces a new section, Paragraph 28j BBBB, to enforce information reporting obligations under Article 13.3 WMB 2024. This includes the DAC9 requirement to declare which specific parts of the global top-up tax information return must be shared with which other jurisdictions.
- If a taxpayer’s failure to comply with these information obligations is due to intent or gross negligence an intent-based administrative fine will be imposed.
- The statutory maximum under the law is Category 6 or Category 4 of the Criminal Code. In practice, the exact fine amount will be determined in consultation with the technical coordinator for formal law.
DAC8 and domestic transaction penalties
To accommodate the enforcement of DAC8 (which governs information exchange for crypto-assets) and the parallel domestic reporting requirements, the BBBB has been updated with stronger enforcement tools:
Increased cross-border penalties under DAC8: The fine for failing to meet information obligations tied to cross-border assistance has jumped sharply. What used to top out at EUR 27,500 (2026 rate) now goes up to EUR 1,100,000, a move from the fourth penalty category to the sixth. A second, new penalty ground has also been added specifically for DAC8-related failures, capped at the same EUR 1,100,000 ceiling. Any intent-based fine under this framework has to be run past the technical coordinator for formal law before it’s issued.
Domestic transaction reporting penalties: A new set of policy rules now covers penalties for failing to report domestic transactions, running in parallel to the DAC7/DAC8 cross-border regime. Where the failure stems from intent or gross negligence, the fine can reach the same top tier: Category 6, up to EUR 1,100,000. As with the cross-border fines, the technical coordinator has to be consulted before this is applied.
Dropping the cautious application clause: The old transitional language urging caution when applying WIB penalties has been struck out entirely, on the grounds that it had become meaningless in practice. That doesn’t shift the underlying burden, though: the inspector still has to make a convincing case for intent or gross negligence before a fine sticks. Taxpayers aren’t losing that protection, just the redundant wording that used to restate it.
