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

28.07.2026
•Commercial and Economic Law, Andersen in Belgium
Since 1 July 2026, low-value imports from third countries have been subject to a new customs regime. Council Regulation (EU) 2026/382 of 11 February 2026, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 as regards the removal of the customs duty relief based on a value threshold, abolishes the customs duty exemption that previously applied to consignments with an intrinsic value of less than €150. At the same time, it introduces, on a transitional basis, a flat-rate customs duty of €3 per item in certain situations. This reform constitutes one of the first components of the comprehensive overhaul of the EU Customs Union launched by the European Commission to adapt customs rules to the rapid expansion of global e-commerce.

10.07.2026
•Tax Law, Andersen in Belgium
The Programme Law of 30 May 2026 has introduced - with retroactive effect from 1 January 2026 - a new condition for applying the flat-rate deduction of expenses from the gross income derived from copyright and related rights.

08.07.2026
•Real Estate, Renting and Co-ownership, Andersen in Belgium
Can a landlord refuse a prospective tenant because their income is less than three times the rent? This question has been central to the debate on discrimination in the rental market for several years. In a judgment of 30 March 2026, the Council of State expressly addressed this so-called “three-times-rent rule” for the first time. The judgment provides important clarification for landlords, real estate investors and real estate agents. The Council of State does not hold that the three-times-rent rule is automatically permissible in all circumstances. It does, however, consider that an income requirement equal to three times the rent and charges is not, in itself, disproportionate and therefore cannot, without more, be regarded as prohibited discrimination on the basis of wealth.

08.07.2026
•Commercial and Economic Law, Andersen in Belgium
On 20 May 2026, the Belgian Council of State delivered three landmark judgments (Nos. 266.735, 266.736 and 266.737) holding that the Belgian prohibition on using the terms soldes, solden, sales, Schlussverkauf outside the statutory winter and summer sales periods is incompatible with European Union law and can no longer be enforced.