Soon, every taxpayer will have to file their tax return again. Investors in cryptocurrency will have to ask themselves whether their income from the sale thereof should be regarded as (to be declared) taxable income.

There is (still) uncertainty regarding the tax treatment of cryptocurrency capital gains. This mostly concerns the tax treatment of capital gains that can be realised on the sale or conversion of cryptocurrency.
If such capital gains are realised by an individual, three possible tax qualifications are conceivable:
Although this ambiguity has existed for some time, there are as yet no specific tax rules on the basis of which the qualification of this income can be unambiguously delineated. The only way to get legal certainty on this qualification is through a ruling application of the Office for Advance Tax Rulings.
Based on the now-published advance tax rulings, an overview can be given of the circumstances that – according to the Office for Advance Tax Rulings – may give rise to exempt, miscellaneous or professional income.
This allows a taxpayer to assess his/her own situation (for the past) or organise it (for the future) so that he/she can try to assess his/her tax liabilities.
The vast majority of published advance tax rulings qualify realised capital gains as income exempt from tax. From the specific circumstances, this requires an extremely prudent and passive investor who:
The taxpayer who meets these criteria can be deemed to have realised purely income exempt from tax.
Only a handful of published advance tax rulings qualify the capital gains realised as miscellaneous income. The specific circumstances show that this requires an investor who does not fully meet the above criteria, but exhibits at least one of the following conditions:
As soon as a taxpayer meets any of these criteria, he/she will – at least according to the Office for Advance Tax Rulings – be deemed to have realised miscellaneous income.
In addition, the 2021 Annual Report also mentions an investment of around 25% of the applicant’s movable assets in cryptocurrencies (i.e. below the aforementioned 25% limit) combined with the realisation of capital gains on cryptocurrency that was held by the applicant for only 2 months. In these circumstances, the Office for Advance Tax Rulings also held that a qualification as miscellaneous income should be withheld.
No published advance tax ruling qualifies the capital gains as income from business activity. The 2020 Annual Report of the Office for Advance Tax Rulings reports one advance tax ruling application where the Office held that there is income from business activity in the following circumstances:
The applicant evidently disagreed with the advance tax ruling of the Office for Advance Tax Rulings and consequently withdrew its advance tax ruling application.
The applicant’s dissatisfaction can be endorsed.
First of all, it remains to be seen whether cryptocurrency mining (particularly some 10 years ago) should indeed be considered an active, constant follow-up activity. If this were the case, at most the activity of mining could be considered a professional activity. The income received from it (being the crypto coins), if any, would have to be considered as income from business activity at the value at the time of its receipt.
If the income from business activity (being the cryptocurrencies) is subsequently held for an extended period (cf. ‘buy and hold’ strategy), the resulting capital gains – based on the advance tax rulings cited above – may be deemed to be income exempt from tax.
The 2022 annual report of the Office for Advance Tax Rulings again mentions qualification as income from business activity. Again, considering all the elements of the case (mining, related professional activity, repurchase of cryptocurrencies owned by a proprietary company on advantageous terms, number of transactions, vagueness around certain transactions, etc.), the Office for Advance Tax Rulings considers that a qualification asincome from business activity should be considered.
The opinion of the Office for Advance Tax Rulings can be used as a guide, but for the record, it is not binding. Accordingly, a taxpayer who has invested more than 25% of his movable assets in crypto currencies, but also has substantial real assets, does not necessarily have to acquiesce to the Ruling Offices opinion that the capital gains realised by him are taxable as miscellaneous income anyway.
In that case, however, it is of course advisable to thoroughly substantiate why the capital gains realised can be considered as falling within the scope of the normal management of private assets or should be considered as miscellaneous income.
Would you like to receive more information or be assisted by the specialists of Andersen in Belgium (formerly Seeds of Law)? Please do not hesitate to contact us at +32 (0)2 747 40 07 or at info@be.Andersen.com.
I am looking for a specialist in

01.10.2026
•Real Estate, Renting and Co-ownership, Andersen in Belgium
On 21 September 2026, the Royal Decree of 20 July 2026 approving the new Code of Ethics of the Professional Institute of Real Estate Agents (BIV) was published in the Belgian Official Gazette. The new Code enters into force on 1 October 2026, the date on which the 2018 regulations are repealed.

29.09.2026
•Urban Planning and Environmental Law, Andersen in Belgium
A developer who contributes financially to the drafting of a spatial implementation plan may thereby jeopardize their integrated environmental permit. This follows a ruling by the Council for Permit Disputes dated September 17, 2026. The ruling addresses a practice that is widespread throughout Flanders.

17.09.2026
•Urban Planning and Environmental Law, Andersen in Belgium
Non-governmental organisations dedicated to protecting human health will soon be able, like environmental protection organisations, to qualify as part of the “public concerned” in urban and/or environmental permitting procedures. This will broaden the range of organisations that may challenge a permitting decision, adding a new dimension to future permitting procedures.

08.09.2026
•Real Estate, Renting and Co-ownership, Andersen in Belgium
Are you renting out a home with serious quality defects? If so, you risk criminal prosecution. Starting today, penalties for renting substandard housing in Flanders will be significantly increased. A fine can reach up to 800,000 euros under aggravating circumstances. At the same time, judges will have greater discretion to tailor the penalty to the severity of the offense.