In two recent rulings, the Supreme Court made an important ruling in favor of private investors with French shares in their investment portfolio.

For many years, private investors holding French shares faced double taxation on dividends obtained from these French shares.
Initially, a French withholding tax is withheld at a rate of 12.8% (since 2018). Belgian withholding tax amounting to 30% is then also deducted from the balance. In this way, from a gross dividend of EUR 100, only EUR 61.04 is finally left (the total tax burden is therefore EUR 38.96 : EUR 12.8 + EUR 26.16).
However, in the double taxation treaty entered into between Belgium and France back in 1964, arrangements were made to avoid such double taxation. Specifically, it was agreed that Belgium would have to credit a fixed part of the Foreign Tax, the so-called FBB, against the Belgian withholding tax. The FBB is at least 15% of the net amount of the dividend (regardless of the actual French withholding tax withheld). In practice, for the above-mentioned example, this would mean that the Belgian withholding tax of EUR 26.16 (EUR 87.2 x 30%) would be reduced by an FBB of 15% or EUR 13.08 (EUR 87.2 x 15%). As a result, the tax burden on French dividends falls from 38.96% to 25.88% (12.8 + (26.16 – 13.08)), ultimately making it even lower than the 30% tax burden on Belgian dividends.
However, the FBB credit was abolished for private investors in 1988. Several investors refused to accept this abolition and relied directly on the aforementioned double taxation treaty to do so. A real procedural battle followed.
In two judgments of 2017 and 2020, the Supreme Court confirmed that, as a matter of principle, private investors are entitled to the FBB credit and that, because of the primacy of international law over national law, a rule of Belgian domestic law that would abolish this right cannot be taken into account.
In a Circular letter of 2021, the finance minister subsequently announced that his administration would abide by this jurisprudence, albeit with the necessary (debatable) reservations. Thus, the Circular letter revealed that the FBB credit would be allowed only on condition that the dividends in question were declared in the personal income tax return under the appropriate headings.
For dividends received in a foreign account, this condition does not normally pose a problem. After all, such dividends have to be declared in the tax return under code 1444-11/2444-78.
For dividends received in a Belgian account, however, this condition is not self-evident. Because of the intervention of a Belgian bank, Belgian withholding tax will be deducted from these dividends. This levy is discharging, which means that there is no obligation to declare these dividends in the tax return.
Since the period to file an objection in the personal income tax (at that time 6 months counting from the third working day from the date of sending the assessment notice) had mostly expired, it was opted in this situation to file an objection in the withholding tax. After all, the time limit for this is 5 years from 1 January of the year in which the withholding tax was withheld.
However, such an objection was invariably rejected. Indeed, the tax administration was of the opinion that the FBB is at most creditable against personal income tax and not at all against withholding tax (which is a different tax). This explains the finance minister’s aforementioned position that a taxpayer would only be entitled to the FBB credit if he declared his French dividends in his tax return.
This position too has now been rejected by the Supreme Court in two recent judgments. In these judgments, the Court again referred to the primacy of the Belgian-French double taxation treaty under which Belgium is obliged to deduct a minimum creditable amount of FBB from the tax due in Belgium, regardless of the method of taxation of the tax due in Belgium.
This case law is initially positive for taxpayers who have already initiated proceedings in the past to enforce the FBB credit.
For those who have taken a wait-and-see approach so far, in certain cases it is not too late to still take action.
For the future, it should be taken into account that a new Belgian-French double tax treaty was signed on 9 November 2021. This new treaty no longer provides for an FBB credit. For the time being, however, this new treaty has not yet entered into force.
Until its entry into force, private investors will therefore still be able to take advantage of the old treaty.
If you would like assistance or more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact our specialists: +32 (0)2 747 40 07 or 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.