DLUquinquies: A New Opportunity to Regularise Assets

While the general structure of the mechanism remains broadly consistent with previous regularisation cycles, recent administrative practice reveals a marked tightening of both the cost of regularisation and the evidentiary requirements imposed on taxpayers.

Established by the Programme Law of 18 July 2025, published in the Belgian Official Gazette (Moniteur belge) on 29 July 2025, the DLUquinquies constitutes the fifth cycle of tax regularisation. The Royal Decree of 28 July 2025, published on 4 August 2025, has also established the new model regularisation-declaration form, available on the FPS Finance website.

General Principles at the Federal Level

The mechanism remains familiar: any taxpayer – whether a natural or legal person – may spontaneously regularise non-prescribed income or prescribed capital with the Regularisation Contact Point (PCR — Point de Contact Régularisations). In exchange for payment of the taxes due, increased by a surcharge, the taxpayer receives a regularisation certificate guaranteeing both tax and criminal immunity. The assets may then be reintegrated into the Belgian economy without any obstruction from financial institutions.

Upon receipt of the regularisation declaration, the PCR notifies the declarant (or their authorised representative) of the admissibility of the file and determines the total amount due. Payment must be made within 15 days of the dispatch of that notification.

The key difference from previous cycles lies in the higher cost of regularisation. Non-prescribed income is now subject to the normal rate of taxation, increased by 30 percentage points (compared to 25 under the DLU quater), while prescribed capital is subject to a separate levy of 45 % (as against 40 % previously). By way of illustration, for income subject to withholding tax on movable income (précompte mobilier), the surcharge is simply added to the base rate. On a base rate of 30 %, the overall tax burden therefore amounts to 60 %.

The FAQ published by the FPS Finance further confirms that no set-off is permitted in computing the regularisation levy: neither withholding taxes already deducted, advance payments, tax credits or reductions, nor taxes levied in the taxpayer’s State of residence are taken into account. In practice, the actual economic cost of regularisation may therefore be significantly higher than the rates set out in the Programme Law alone would suggest.

In substance, the changes remain relatively limited: a new definition of ‘prescribed capital’, a number of terminological adjustments, and the confirmation that regularisation is excluded in cases of serious cross-border VAT fraud to the detriment of the European Union. The amendments promised under the government agreement – in particular, a more lenient approach for good-faith heirs who acquired the assets in question without themselves committing any tax fraud – are, however, absent from the final text.

The evidentiary burden remains particularly onerous: the taxpayer must demonstrate, by means of written documentation, that the prescribed capital has already been subject to ordinary taxation. In many cases, however, the supporting documents have long since ceased to exist, leaving beneficiaries with no choice but to accept a flat-rate levy of 45 % on assets that are in fact ‘clean’ or at the very least ‘grey’.

The administrative FAQ confirms this strict approach, specifying that where a taxpayer seeks to regularise only non-prescribed movable income without including tax-prescribed capital in the regularisation, the PCR will require proof that such capital has already been subject to ordinary taxation. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the levy will be computed to include the tax-prescribed capital. The administration does, however, acknowledge the possibility of submitting a ‘pre-filing’ (whether anonymous or not) in cases of uncertainty as to the adequacy of the available supporting documents.

Moreover, the new procedure still draws no distinction between ordinary tax fraud and serious tax fraud, applying an identical regime to situations that differ markedly in both nature and gravity.

The administrative FAQ also provides a number of important clarifications regarding foreign wealth structures. In particular, the administration confirms that where the Cayman Tax (taxe Caïman) applies, the rules specific to that regime take full precedence over the regularisation mechanism, and the DLUquinquies may not be used to circumvent the application of the look-through taxation rules set out in Articles 5/1 and following of the Income Tax Code (CIR – Code des impôts sur les revenus).

The FAQ further confirms the possibility of regularising physical gold and provides several practical indications as to the types of evidence likely to be accepted in this regard.

As under the DLU quater, regularisation will only be available provided the taxpayer has not been formally notified in writing of ongoing specific investigative measures by a Belgian judicial authority, a Belgian tax administration, a social security institution, a social inspection service, or the FPS Economy.

Finally, the DLUquinquies applies only to federal taxes such as VAT, withholding tax on movable income, income tax, etc. The Regions must therefore adopt their own decrees in respect of inheritance and registration duties, or conclude cooperation agreements.

The Flemish Regime and Cooperation Agreements

It is in this context that Flanders has chosen to establish its own regularisation regime, alongside the federal mechanism. The Flemish Programme Decree of 19 December 2025 introduced a temporary regime for the regularisation of inheritance and registration duties evaded in the Flemish Region. Modelled on the Flemish Decree of 10 February 2017, this scheme applies from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2029 in respect of infringements committed before 1 July 2025.

The Flemish rates have, however, been revised upwards compared to the previous regime:

• for non-prescribed inheritance duties: 40 % for transfers in direct line or between partners (compared to 35 %), and 75 % for other transfers (compared to 70 %);
• for non-prescribed registration duties: 25 % (compared to 20 %);
• for prescribed capital, a progressive scale is introduced: 40 % in 2026, 42 % in 2027, 44 % in 2028, and 45 % in 2029.

The Flemish Decree also provides for a deduction mechanism in favour of taxpayers who have already paid a regularisation levy at the federal level. Where a declarant has already made a payment under the federal Programme Law of 18 July 2025, that amount may, subject to certain conditions, be taken into account within the framework of the Flemish regional regularisation or in the context of an ordinary tax return relating to the estate.

On 30 April 2026, the Council of Ministers approved two cooperation agreements concluded between the federal State, on the one hand, and the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region respectively, on the other, with a view to organising the regularisation of ‘unsplit’ tax-prescribed capital – that is, capital for which it is not possible to determine whether it falls exclusively within federal or regional tax jurisdiction.

With the Flemish Region, it has been agreed that half of the amounts declared in respect of such capital will be regularised under the Flemish regime. With the Walloon Region, it has been agreed that the FPS Finance will process regularisation requests on behalf of the Region, with the resulting levies distributed equally between the federal State and the Walloon Region. These agreements reflect the need for increased coordination between the levels of government within the framework of the new tax regularisation procedures.

A Thorough Analysis of Your File May Help Limit the Total Cost of a Tax Regularisation

The DLUquinquies and the new Flemish regime reflect a clear shift in Belgium’s tax regularisation policy: the possibility of voluntary compliance remains open, but at a substantially higher cost and within a markedly more demanding evidentiary framework. Recent administrative practice further confirms a growing determination on the part of both the tax authorities and financial institutions to scrutinise more rigorously the origin and traceability of regularised assets.

In this context, regularisation retains clear appeal for taxpayers seeking to secure their tax and asset position, even as international exchanges of information and the investigative capabilities of tax administrations continue to expand.

If you are considering proceeding with a tax regularisation, our tax department is available to analyse your situation and assist you in implementing this procedure.