Tax Residency of Companies Under Dutch Tax Law and Treaties: Effective Management in Practice

A corporate entity’s tax residency determines where it must file tax returns and, ultimately, where it is required to pay or withhold taxes. Under Dutch tax law, such tax residency is determined based on an ‘open norm’, meaning that ‘all relevant facts and circumstances’ are decisive in establishing a corporate entity’s place of tax residency. And in cases of dual residency, meaning more than one country thinks the entity is a resident, an applicable tax treaty breaks the tie and determines the entity’s tax residency.

In this article, we will explain how the tax residency of a corporate entity under Dutch tax law works on the basis of a recent tax residency-case: ‘Court of Appeal of December 19, 2025’. As a brief spoiler regarding the case at hand: it revolved around a Malta-registered entity, the tax residency of which was determined to be in the Netherlands because the Netherlands-based external advisors were ruled to have exercised the ‘effective management’ over the said entity during the relevant years, instead of its statutory board members.

Key Takeaways:

• Dutch tax residency could be relevant to determine whether an entity has a filing obligation and tax liability in the Netherlands.
• Under international frameworks, an where an entity is a tax resident generally hinges upon where it is ‘effectively managed’. After all: if it were as simple as choosing an incorporation jurisdiction and/or registered address, even any brick-and-mortar factory could opt-in to -say- Bahamian taxation simply by changing its legal form and/or registration. Needless to say; that’s not how it works and a substance-over-form-approach prevails.
• A company incorporated under Dutch law always remains a deemed Dutch tax resident for corporate income tax (CIT) and dividend withholding tax (DWT) purposes, even if the place of effective management relocates abroad.
• If another country, however, also considers such a (Dutch) entity as its resident, the tax treaty’s tiebreaker provision will determine which of the clamiing states ‘wins’ the entity’s tax residency for the purposes of the tax treaty.
• For recently concluded Dutch tax treaties, the mutual agreement procedure is used to determine entities’ tax residency, taking into account several factors, such as notably the place of effective management.
• For older concluded Dutch tax treaties, the tiebreaker provision may, in some cases, be modified by the Multilateral Instrument (MLI). It is important to verify this for the relevant treaty in the BEPS Matching Database.
• The place of effective management can also be considered exercised by other persons than the board of directors, such as advisors that are actively involved with key decisions of the corporate entity. 

A Brief Explainer of The Case at Hand

In the Court of Appeals Case of November 19, 2025, a company incorporated under Dutch company law moved its corporate seat to Malta in 2011, and registered in Malta as of that same year. A Maltese-resident board director was appointed, and serves as the entity’s sole board regsitered member. This board director also works for a ‘trust firm’ located in Malta. The company’s activities consist of asset management, and it holds a large investment portfolio.

The company was imposed Dutch corporate income tax (‘CIT’) and dividend withholding tax (‘DWT’) assessments for the years 2012, 2013 and 2015 by the Dutch tax authorities, as they ruled that the stated director was not in fact ‘effectively managing the compny’. And the Court of Appeal agreed with the Dutch tax authorities that the company’s tax residency remained unchanged, as its effective management was indeed ruled to have been exercised from the Netherlands by means of ‘strategic and decision‑making control’ exercised by the company’s Dutch advisors. Notably, both the company’s tax and restructuring advisors were evidence to have hadan initiating, steering, and coordinating roles in relation to the company’s activities in the relevant years.

Let’s dive in.

The Framework: Tax Residency under Dutch Tax Law

How to determine the ‘place of effective management’ under Dutch tax law?

An entity’s Dutch tax residency is determined by applying the overarching rule laid down in Article 4 of the General Tax Act (GTA). This article states that the place where an individual lives (i.e.: is a resident) or where a corporate entity is based (i.e.: resident) will be determined based on ‘the facts and circumstances’. And the decisive factor for corporate entities is the where its ‘effective management is exercised’. The term ‘effective management’ from a Dutch tax perspective, in principle, refers to the place where the day-to-day activities take place.

Case law indicates that, as a starting point, such effective management is presumed to be exercised by the statutory board of an entity, and that the location (state/country) where this board performs this management determines the location of the company’s tax residency. However, if it can be demonstrated that another person or body in fact exercises effective management instead of said statutory board members, the entity’s ‘place effective management’ will align with the place where said other person or body carries out those management activities.

So, the following factors are key in determining the entity’s place of effective management:

• The place where the company is incorporated
• The place where the annual report and financial administration are prepared
• The currency that is used for the financials
• The place where the company’s board of directors live and has board meetings

The residency-article 4 AWR applies to the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Act, and Dividend Withholding Tax Act. So: this same analysis determines whether an entity has a reporting, and a tax liability or withholding obligation under those Act, i.e.: whether it falls within its scope as a resident.

Tax Liability under the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Code

A company can be considered a ‘regular’ tax resident, or a non-resident taxpayer for CIT purposes. A non-resident taxpayer is a foreign-based entity that derives Netherlands-sourced income, for instance by means of a physical presence in the Netherlands (also known as ‘permanent establishment’).

Under the CIT Act, both companies incorporated under Dutch company law (Dutch legal forms), and non-Dutch company law (non-Dutch legal forms) can be treated as a Dutch tax resident or a non-resident taxpayer under certain conditions explained below.

Dutch Legal Forms that are Considered ‘per sé’ CIT Liable Entities

Among others, the following Dutch legal forms are by definition subject to Dutch CIT in case the entities are effectively managed in the Netherlands:

1. A Dutch public limited company (in Dutch: naamloze vennootschap) or limited liability company (in Dutch: besloten vennootschap)
2. A Dutch cooperative (in Dutch: coöperatie)
3. Certain type of associations (for example, a Dutch onderlinge waarbormaatschappij or vereniging)

For a number of Dutch legal forms, the entity would in principle always be considered a Netherlands resident based on “the fiction” in article 2, paragraph 5 of the CIT Act. For example, in case a Dutch limited liability company is effectively managed from Germany, the entity remains in principle liable to Dutch CIT. In that case, the tiebreaker-provision in the relevant tax treaty with Germany determines the tax residency (please see more about this below). We note that this fiction in Article 2, paragraph 5, of the CIT Act applies only to a limited number of CIT Act provisions.

Non-Dutch legal forms that can be considered tax residents for CIT purposes

Entities incorporated under foreign law could be considered Dutch tax residents for CIT purposes if they are effectively managed from the Netherlands and are comparable to only one type of Dutch CIT-liable legal form, such as a Dutch public limited company or limited liability company. For more information about the Dutch tax classification of non-Dutch legal entities, please check out this blog post:

Non-resident taxpayers for CIT purposes

In case an entity with a non-Dutch legal form is considered comparable to only one Dutch legal form mentioned (such as a Dutch public limited company, limited liability company or cooperative) and derives Netherlands-sourced income, the entity will become a non-resident taxpayer for CIT purposes. As mentioned earlier, Netherlands-sourced income would, for instance, be income derived from a physical presence in the Netherlands. To determine the Netherlands-sourced income a part of the result would be allocated to the Netherlands based on a transfer pricing type of study.

Withholding Obligation for Dutch Dividend Withholding Tax

Among others, an entity that is effectively managed in the Netherlands, has the obligation to withhold DWT in at least the following cases:

• The entity is a Dutch public limited company, a Dutch limited liability company, or a comparable type of non-Dutch legal form;
• The entity is a mutual fund (in Dutch: fonds voor gemene rekening) or a comparable type of non-Dutch legal form;
• The entity is a so-called ‘holding cooperative’ (in Dutch: houdstercoöperatie);

Also, the DWT Act has a similar fiction for Netherlands incorporated entities in article 1, paragraph 3 DWT Act. Entities with certain Dutch legal forms (such as the Dutch public limited company and limited liability company) would in principle always be considered effectively managed from the Netherlands for DWT purposes.

Applying this Framework in ‘The Case at Hand’ where the relevant entity was an entity incorporated under Dutch law

In the case at hand, the Netherlands-incorporated company moved its corporate seat to Malta, where its sole board member also resided. Nonetheless, under the CIT Act and the DWT Act, the company may be regarded as a Dutch tax resident on the basis of the residency fiction set out in Article 2 paragraph 5 CIT Act and article 1 paragraph 3 DWT Act. As such, the company has access to Tax Treaty NL – Malta. Because we assume that Malta also considered the company as its tax resident, the tiebreaker-rule in the Tax Treaty NL – Malta was analyzed to determine whether the company is a tax resident of the Netherlands or Malta. The tiebreaker provision in the Tax Treaty Netherlands – Malta states the following:

Par. 4: “Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1, a person other than an individual is a resident of both States, then it shall be deemed to be a resident of the State in which its place of effective management is situated.”

As under the general rule in Article 4 AWR, the place of effective management is decisive in the tie-breaker provision, which is discussed in more detail below.

Dual Residents under Tax Treaties

‘Pre-2017 tax treaties’

As mentioned before, entities incorporated under Dutch company law are, by default, considered Dutch tax residents. In contrast, foreign incorporated entities would be considered Dutch tax resident when their place of effective management is exercised from the Netherlands. If a company is considered both a Dutch tax resident and a tax resident of another country, the applicable tax treaty must be consulted, if any.

The Netherlands has concluded tax treaties with about 100 countries to avoid double taxation. Generally, the tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands include a so-called tiebreaker-rule in alignment with the former OECD Model Tax Convention. The tiebreaker rule in the tax treaties determines which country can consider the dual resident entity as its tax resident. In most tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands pre-2017, the tie-breaker rule provides that the country in which a company’s effective management is exercised, is deemed to be the country of its tax residence. The place of effective management is explained as follows [paragraph 24 of the OECD Model Tax Convention 2010]:

“(…) The place of effective management is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity’s business as a whole are in substance made. All relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the place of effective management. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can have only one place of effective management at any one time.”

The commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention mentions various factors to determine the effective management, such as:

• where the meetings of its board of directors or equivalent body are usually held
• where the chief executive officer and other senior executives usually carry on their activities
• where the senior day-to-day management of the person is carried on
• where the person’s headquarters are located, which country’s laws govern the legal status of the person
• where its accounting records are kept
• In the commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention, it is stated that some countries consider cases of dual residence of non-individuals to be relatively rare and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Some countries also consider that such a case-by-case approach is the best way to deal with the difficulties in determining the place of effective management of a legal person that may arise from the use of new communication technologies. As a result of BEPS Actionplan 6, the default definition of the tiebreaker provision in new tax treaties has therefore changed as of 2017.

New tiebreaker rule in tax treaties as of 2017

The tiebreaker rule in the OECD Model Tax Convention has been changed, and the ‘place of effective management’ is no longer the decisive factor. Instead, the relevant countries will resolve the tax residency of a dual resident company by mutual agreement. Both tax authorities will, through a mutual agreement procedure, determine which country can be designated as a company’s tax resident. In these mutual agreement procedures between authorities, relevant factors will be taken into account, such as the place of effective management, the place of incorporation, or other relevant factors.

Although the discussions on the place of effective management were challenging, the new approach of mutual agreement could result in more lengthy processes and less certainty in the short term. The Netherlands included the new tiebreaker rule in the newly concluded tax treaties as of 2017. In some early concluded tax treaties the mutual agreement procedure was already included in the dual resident provision, for example the tax treaty with the United States of America. A good example of such a new tax treaty is the one concluded by the Netherlands and Colombia in 2022. The wording of the tiebreaker rule in Article 4, paragraph 4 of this tax treaty included the following:

“Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1 a person other than an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall endeavour to determine by mutual agreement the Contracting State of which such person shall be deemed to be a resident for the purposes of the Convention, having regard to its place of effective management, the place where it is incorporated or otherwise constituted and any other relevant factors.(…)”

Note that you can obtain certainty in advance from the Dutch tax authorities regarding tax residency.

Tiebreaker rule in pre-2017 tax treaties also modified as a result of the multilateral instrument

Some of the older tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands will incorporate this new definition through the MLI. In 2017, the Netherlands signed this Multilateral Treaty, as did many other countries worldwide. The MLI co-exists with the bilateral tax treaties that the Netherlands has concluded with other countries. If both the Netherlands and another country that has adopted the MLI agree to apply the MLI to their tax treaty, certain MLI provisions will take precedence over the treaty’s original provisions [please see an overview on this website]. Both countries need to agree on which MLI provision takes precedence over the provision in the tax treaty. So, not all provisions of the MLI apply to the relevant tax treaty by default.

In the OECD BEPS MLI Matching Base, you can check which provision of the MLI is opted-out for the relevant tax treaty. As a result of the MLI, the new tiebreaker rule, in the form of a mutual agreement procedure, could also apply to older tax treaties, provided both countries have opted in to Article 4 of the MLI. As an example and link to the case at hand, the Netherlands and Malta have both adopted the MLI, but Article 4 of the MLI was ‘opted-out’. So, the new tiebreaker-rule would not apply to the tax treaty that the Netherlands and Malta have concluded.

Please find below an overview of the Dutch tax treaties to which the new tiebreaker provision applies:

The Case at Hand: the Company was considered Tax Resident of the Netherlands

In the case at hand, the lower court and Court of Appeal both ruled that the place of effective management was exercised from the Netherlands. The board director in Malta had more of an ‘implementing role’ rather than making core decisions. In an important ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court in 2018 (the so-called ‘Singapore-ruling’), the definition of the place of effective management was further explained and consists of the following elements (translated from Dutch):

• the place where the key decisions regarding the activities of the entity are made;
• the place where ultimate responsibility for these decisions is held; and
• the place from which instructions are issued to the persons working within the entity.

The Supreme Court added that whoever has day-to-day management in the implementation of certain matters is not relevant for determining the place of management and administration of a legal entity.

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal took into account the Singapore-ruling in its considerations. The key initial question is: what could be considered the entity’s activities? In this case, the company had an investment portfolio managed by a Swiss bank. The entity had no other relevant assets, or (business) activities. According to the Court of Appeal, the advisors in the Netherlands had an initiating, directing, and coordinating role in the entity’s decisions. This role was demonstrated by the following facts and circumstances:

• The liability of the Malta-based director was limited in the agreement concluded between the entity and the trust firm, and therefore the board director had no responsibility
• It was not demonstrated that the board director had responsibility regarding the investments of the entity
• The notes of a board meeting were already prepared in the Netherlands in advance (so before the meeting) by the director.
• The activities of the board director and its trust form colleagues were more of an administrative nature
• The advisors had a lot of involvement with a restructuring of the investments held by the entity. The board director’s involvement was more of an implementation role.

It can be challenging for passive investment entities to demonstrate what their activities are and who made decisions regarding these activities. Because the advisors had active involvement with the restructuring, the Court of Appeal ruled that the place of effective management was exercised by the advisors from the Netherlands. This meant that the entity remained a Dutch tax resident and was imposed tax assessments for CIT and DWT. Please find a commentary on this case on this NDFR-link (only in Dutch).

Want to discuss or have any questions? Book a Slot, it’s on the House!