Documenting well is the message. Better late than never ! The free provision of a (holiday) home or a flat by a company to its manager is and remains an interesting tax optimisation technique. However, it is viewed with suspicion by the tax authorities. The discussion always revolves around the question whether the costs relating to such home supported by the company can be considered as tax-deductible business expenses.

In order to prove that the costs relating to the company’s home can be regarded as a tax-deductible professional expense, the company must demonstrate in particular that the costs were incurred or borne in order to obtain or retain taxable income (the so-called finality condition).
Broadly speaking, two arguments are used in this respect : on the one hand, the remuneration theory and, on the other hand, the capital gains theory (in particular for real estate acquired in full ownership by the company).
Both arguments have since been subject of a multitude of case law, in which the deductibility of such costs is sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected.
A careful analysis of this case law shows that while both the remuneration theory and the capital gains theory do stand in principle, the taxpayer often fails to substantiate these theories in fact. In other words, the mere assertion that a property is made available (whether for free or not) by way of remuneration of the company manager or that it was purchased with a view to a potential long-term capital gain is not sufficient.
In the case of the added-value theory, it will have to be demonstrated concretely that the company had the intention of realising a capital gain on the property at the time of purchase.
This intention is best recorded within the company at the time of purchase. If this was not done, this intention can equally be proven on the basis of presumption.
For example, the intention could be inferred from the fact that there is an investment in full ownership rather than mere usufruct. If the company has made similar investments in the past on which a capital gain was effectively realised, it will also be possible to argue that the new investment was made with the same intention. The Court of Appeal of Ghent recently confirmed the deductibility of the costs relating to a well-defined real estate property after the company had demonstrated, based on a set of factual elements, that it has an actual and regular business activity of buying and selling real estate.
n the case of the remuneration theory, it must be demonstrated that the benefit granted (consisting of the provision of the property) is part of the company’s remuneration policy and corresponds to actual performance by the manager. In the absence of such evidence, there will be a (non-deductible) liberality on the part of the company.
Recent case law shows that the following elements may be decisive :
A lot of companies only started documenting their remuneration policy after learning about this recent case law.
The fact that this was not yet done at the time of the purchase of the property does not prevent such evidence from being provided for later assessment years.
As a result, it is perfectly possible that the deductibility of the costs for financial year x will be finally rejected in the absence of a substantiated remuneration policy, while the deductibility of these costs for financial year x + 1 will be accepted if the company has since documented its remuneration policy in accordance with recent case law. This is where the remuneration theory differs fundamentally from the capital gains theory.
Thus, the importance of a carefully documented remuneration policy cannot be underestimated. Even companies that have paid insufficient attention to this in the past are warned to remedy this : better late than never!
If you would like more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact our specialists at info@be.Andersen.com or +32 (0)2 747 40 07.
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.