With the entry into force of the Programme Act of […], a new exit tax is introduced at the level of shareholders. This exit tax will apply to a deemed dividend that shareholders are considered to have received as a result of a cross-border transfer of the company’s seat (Article 210, §1, 4°, ITC) or certain restructuring operations such as mergers and demergers.

Until now, the notional treatment of such transactions as a liquidation had consequences only within the scope of corporate income tax. As a result, the company could be taxed on latent capital gains and tax-exempt reserves. This equivalence in principle had no tax implications for the shareholders, as no actual dividend was distributed.
This position, grounded on a strict application of the principle of legality, is shared by the Ruling Commission. However, the Central Services of the tax administration take a different view, arguing that the liquidation equivalence should also extend to the shareholder level. Accordingly, a cross-border transfer of seat would, from the perspective of the shareholders, result in a deemed but taxable dividend distribution.
These conflicting interpretations have led to various legal proceedings, which so far appear to be turning out in favour of the shareholders. In practice, however, the tax administration continues to adhere to the position of the Central Services and thus proceeds with the taxation of a deemed dividend in the case of cross-border seat transfers.
Through the Programme Act, the tax legislator aims to put an end to this controversy (at least for the future). The legal fiction is now explicitly extended to the shareholder level. Shareholders are deemed to receive a (fictitious) dividend equal to the capital gains booked on the assets transferred abroad by the emigrating company, after corporate income tax has been applied, and in proportion to the shares they hold in the emigrating company.
This fiction applies to:
The deemed liquidation dividend is subject to the standard tax regime for movable income, namely a withholding tax of (in principle) 30%. However, an exemption is provided for the portion of the deemed liquidation dividend that can be attributed to regularly constituted liquidation reserves. Shareholders subject to corporate income tax may, subject to legal conditions, benefit from the dividends-received deduction (DRD) regime.
To avoid economic double taxation, a correction mechanism is introduced. This mechanism allows the shareholder to offset the tax paid on the deemed dividend against the tax due when an actual dividend is paid out later following the realisation of the effective capital gain.
In the absence of an actual distribution, no withholding tax can be levied at source. Consequently, the shareholders concerned must declare the deemed dividend in their tax return. The company transferring assets abroad is required to issue an individual tax form to each affected shareholder. If it fails to do so, a separate assessment will be established at the level of the company.
The extension of this legal fiction to the level of shareholders is legally questionable for several reasons:
It is therefore to be expected that this reform will continue to give rise to numerous legal disputes in the future.
For ongoing proceedings, this new regime can in any case be invoked in favour of the shareholders. The legislative amendment confirms that, prior to its entry into force, the fiction only had consequences at the level of corporate income tax and did not extend to shareholders.
If you have any questions about this topic or require assistance in the context of a dispute with the tax authorities, please do not hesitate to contact the tax department at Andersen.
I am looking for a specialist in

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.

23.06.2026
•Commercial and Economic Law, Andersen in Belgium
The growth of e-commerce has fundamentally transformed consumer behaviour. To encourage online purchasing, retailers have progressively introduced customer-friendly policies: free delivery, free returns, extended return periods, and no-questions-asked refunds.