Karel Baert, CEO of Febelfin: “We are being asked by the authorities to implement an extremely complex fiscal measure at record speed. Banks have so far adopted a highly constructive approach and made maximum efforts to prepare for the introduction of the capital gains tax. However, to fundamentally change the way the law is applied just three weeks before it comes into force, and without consulting the sector, is irresponsible. The government’s insistence on sticking to the symbolic date of 1 January will lead to disproportionate complexity for clients, unprecedented efforts for banks, and considerable legal uncertainty for all taxpayers."

The legal framework for the capital gains tax is already highly complicated, but the new transitional arrangement would create additional complexity, risks, and uncertainties for customers.

Under the proposal, banks would have to apply the law from 1 January 2026, even though the legislation will only be voted on and published later in the spring. The banking sector wishes to emphasise that retroactive application of withholding tax prior to the publication of the law is impossible, and that the new “transitional measure” would also bring excessive legal uncertainty and complexity for clients.

The sector would effectively be asked to act as a kind of collection agency, reversing the regime developed so far—namely default withholding tax with an opt-out option (with reporting)—for the period between 1 January and the publication of the law.

Citizens would now have the possibility to ask their bank to make a ‘voluntary’ payment of the ‘tax’, creating an ‘opt-in’ system. This arrangement raises significant legal questions regarding its consequences for citizens and could lead to discrimination between taxpayers.

Numerous examples can be given of the complex issues that will arise. What choice can a client make if they switch banks in February (and the law only comes into force in March or April) and have realised capital gains before leaving? Should or can this client turn to the new or old bank if they wish to use the opt-in?

Or what happens if no choice is made for this voluntary payment, or if there is disagreement between different account holders after inheriting a portfolio? This could lead to discrimination between taxpayers, with anonymity potentially compromised for one or more heirs if one heir refuses the opt-in.

Banks are always ready to help and support their clients as much as possible in this complex matter, but the sector is seriously concerned about how it can continue to inform and guide clients correctly in the coming weeks and months, given the many unanswered questions and the still unstable legal framework.

The sector proposes that the law should come into force no earlier than the first day of the month following the month in which the law is published. This would give all parties involved (including taxpayers) a minimum period to familiarise themselves with the final legal framework and apply it correctly.

Febelfin calls on the government to reconsider its decision and take the following points into account:

The budgetary impact of shifting the effective date would be limited for the budget, as the reference date of 31 December 2025 can still be maintained.

The banking sector is willing to play its part and will do everything possible to support clients. But this can only happen within a legal framework that is workable and enforceable. Only then can we contribute to a fair system that not only supports policy objectives but also recognises operational realities and provides legal certainty for the population.