Dutch lawmakers have approved a major reform to the country’s Box 3 tax regime, setting the stage for a 36% tax on actual returns from savings and investments starting on Jan. 1, 2028. For crypto investors, the most consequential part of the measure is that it applies not only to realized gains but also to unrealized gains on assets such as bitcoin, ether, and other digital tokens. In practice, that means investors could owe tax on portfolio appreciation even if they do not sell.
A Mark-to-Market Style Tax for Crypto
Under the newly approved Actual Return in Box 3 Act, Dutch residents would be taxed on annual changes in the value of their assets rather than only on income actually received or profits locked in through a sale. For crypto holders, that makes the policy especially sensitive because digital assets are often highly volatile and can generate significant paper gains without producing cash flow.
The example highlighted in the report is straightforward: if a crypto portfolio rises by €10,000 over the course of a year, that increase would be treated as taxable income even if the investor keeps holding the assets and never sells. That feature has quickly become the focal point of criticism from market participants who argue that the law taxes wealth fluctuations that remain purely notional until realized.
Crypto Treated Differently From Real Estate and Startup Shares
One reason the proposal has sparked debate is that crypto is not being treated the same way as all other asset classes. According to the report, real estate and qualifying startup shares are exempt from this annual mark-to-market approach and would instead be taxed when sold. Crypto, by contrast, would face annual taxation based on value changes.
That distinction has fueled complaints from digital asset advocates, who see an uneven tax burden developing between crypto holders and investors in other categories of property. The issue is not simply the headline tax rate, but the timing of when tax becomes due and whether the investor has the liquidity needed to pay it.
Liquidity Concerns and Potential Investor Relocation
Critics argue that taxing unrealized gains creates a practical cash-flow problem. If an investor’s bitcoin or ether position rises sharply during the year, they may owe tax despite receiving no proceeds from a sale. In that scenario, some holders could be forced to liquidate part of their portfolios merely to cover the tax bill.
The report notes that this concern has led some observers to warn that Dutch crypto investors may begin considering relocation to jurisdictions with more favorable tax frameworks. For a mobile investor base that can often custody assets digitally and operate across borders, tax competitiveness matters. Although governments routinely balance fairness, revenue collection, and market impact, crypto investors tend to be especially sensitive to policies that create tax obligations before cash is realized.
Dutch authorities have acknowledged the existence of liquidity risks in the explanatory memorandum attached to the reform. Even so, the government has defended the structure as necessary to prevent billions in lost tax revenue. In other words, policymakers appear to view the inclusion of unrealized gains as a revenue-protection measure rather than an ideal long-term design.
Relief Measures Included, but Critics Remain Unconvinced
The law does include provisions intended to soften the impact on smaller savers and investors. It provides a tax-free annual return allowance of around $2,130, creating a buffer for those with limited gains. It also allows unlimited loss carry-forward for net losses above $590, enabling investors to offset future gains after downturns.
Those features may reduce the burden at the margin, especially in years when markets reverse and prior losses become relevant. But for critics of the policy, these safeguards do not address the core objection: taxing gains that exist only on paper. In volatile markets, investors may face tax on one year’s appreciation and then watch prices retrace later, leaving them with a difficult mismatch between tax timing and asset performance.
Crypto’s Growing Footprint in the Netherlands
The debate comes at a time when crypto exposure in the Netherlands has grown meaningfully. According to data from De Nederlandsche Bank, indirect crypto investments by Dutch companies, institutions, and households reached $1.42 billion by October 2025, up from just $96 million in 2020. Direct crypto holdings by the financial sector stood at $134 million in the third quarter of 2025.
While that still represents only around 0.03% of total Dutch securities holdings, the pace of growth is noteworthy. The figures suggest that crypto remains a relatively small slice of the national investment landscape, but one that is expanding fast enough to attract serious regulatory and fiscal attention. As the asset class matures, the tax treatment applied to it will increasingly shape investor behavior.
An Unusual Approach by Continental European Standards
The Dutch model stands out because annual taxation of portfolio value changes, including crypto, is not a typical approach across continental Europe. Many tax systems focus more heavily on realized capital gains, meaning tax is triggered at disposal rather than through mark-to-market valuation. That is why the Dutch proposal is likely to be watched closely beyond the country’s borders.
Officials have reportedly said that the long-term policy objective remains a transition toward a realized capital gains model. For now, however, taxing unrealized crypto gains is being presented as the only workable solution to protect public finances. That framing is important: it suggests the government sees the current design as a pragmatic interim arrangement rather than the final destination for investment taxation.
Why the Law Matters for Bitcoin and Ether Holders
For holders of bitcoin and ether, the reform raises questions that go beyond the nominal tax rate. Portfolio management, tax planning, and liquidity reserves could become more important than before. Investors may need to think not only about whether an asset appreciates, but also about whether they have sufficient cash available to meet tax liabilities generated by that appreciation.
The proposal also reinforces a broader trend in global crypto policy: governments are becoming less willing to leave digital assets in tax gray zones. As ownership broadens and market values rise, authorities increasingly want crypto to fit within standard tax frameworks, even if doing so creates friction for investors.
If implemented as planned in 2028, the Dutch reform could become one of the clearest real-world tests of how far a government can go in taxing unrealized crypto gains without prompting meaningful behavioral changes. Market participants will be watching whether the policy raises revenue as intended, whether investors adjust by reducing exposure or moving capital, and whether the Netherlands eventually follows through on its stated goal of shifting toward a realized gains system.