International groups with a presence in the Netherlands face concrete filing obligations under DAC9 (Directive (EU) 2025/872), which requires the automatic exchange of GloBE Information Returns between EU tax authorities to support enforcement of Pillar Two minimum taxation. The Belastingdienst is the competent authority for receiving and exchanging these reports in the Netherlands, and groups must assess their position under Dutch transposition rules as national implementation details continue to be confirmed. Failure to comply carries the risk of infringement exposure both at the member state level and – where the Commission has already signalled its readiness to act – at the EU level.
The Netherlands in Context: Why the Dutch Angle Matters Now
The Netherlands has long been a preferred jurisdiction for intermediate holding structures, regional headquarters and treasury entities, largely because of its extensive treaty network, the deelnemingsvrijstelling (participation exemption), and a relatively predictable relationship with the Belastingdienst. That familiarity does not insulate Dutch-resident entities from the new information architecture introduced by DAC9. Groups that have structured their operations through a Dutch BV or other Dutch entity now face a layer of disclosure that sits above and alongside existing Country-by-Country Reporting obligations.
The Dutch government has been an active participant in OECD Pillar Two deliberations, and the Netherlands enacted its domestic Minimum Tax Act (Wet minimumbelasting 2024) ahead of several peer jurisdictions. The practical consequence is that the Belastingdienst is in principle prepared to act as both a receiving and a transmitting authority under DAC9's exchange mechanism. How the precise procedural rules – filing portals, formats, and penalty provisions – will operate under any implementing or amending legislation is subject to national rules that are still being confirmed as of the date of this analysis.
DAC9 and the GloBE Information Return: The EU Legal Foundation
Directive (EU) 2025/872, commonly referred to as DAC9, creates a mandatory automatic exchange framework specifically tailored to Pillar Two. Its core function is to transmit GloBE Information Returns filed by constituent entities or their designated filing entities to every member state whose jurisdiction has a stake in the reported group. This avoids duplication of filing across multiple member states while ensuring that each relevant tax authority receives the data it needs to enforce its qualified domestic minimum top-up tax or income inclusion rule.
DAC9 arrived as part of a broader administrative cooperation update that also included DAC8 (Directive (EU) 2023/2226), which governs crypto-asset reporting aligned with the OECD CARF framework. Both directives share a common implementation timeline: DAC8 applies EU-wide from 1 January 2026, and the European Commission opened infringement procedures on 30 January 2026 against member states that had not transposed DAC8 or DAC9 by their respective deadlines. That enforcement signal is not academic – it illustrates the Commission's willingness to use formal procedures to accelerate national uptake.
Filing Obligations: What Dutch-Resident Entities Need to Identify
The starting point for any group is determining which entity bears the obligation to file the GloBE Information Return in the Netherlands and whether a designated filing entity arrangement has been, or should be, put in place. Under the GloBE model rules and their EU transposition, the obligation may rest with:
- The ultimate parent entity (UPE), if it is resident in the Netherlands and the group has no alternative filing mechanism;
- A surrogate parent entity designated under a qualifying competent authority agreement or an equivalent domestic rule, where the UPE is located in a third country that has not enacted a qualifying exchange framework;
- A local filing entity in the Netherlands, where neither the UPE nor a surrogate parent has filed and the Belastingdienst would otherwise receive no GloBE data concerning the Dutch operations.
Each of these scenarios triggers different procedural questions: the content and format of the return, the applicable submission deadline, and the interaction with any Dutch-specific administrative guidance the Belastingdienst may issue. Groups should not assume that their existing CbCR filing arrangement automatically satisfies DAC9 obligations – the two regimes overlap in scope but differ in content and legal basis.
Registration with the Dutch Commercial Register (KvK) remains relevant for entity identification purposes, and groups should verify that the registered details of their Dutch constituent entities accurately reflect their current structure, particularly after post-acquisition reorganisations.
If your group has constituent entities in the Netherlands and you are working through the question of which filing arrangement applies, our tax practice is available to assist. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Interaction With Dutch Minimum Tax Legislation
The Netherlands enacted its Pillar Two domestic legislation – the Wet minimumbelasting 2024 – to give effect to both the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and the Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT). The GloBE Information Return filed under DAC9 feeds directly into the Belastingdienst's ability to verify whether a group's self-assessed top-up tax liability is correct. From a compliance risk perspective, inconsistencies between the GloBE return and the Dutch minimum tax filing could attract scrutiny and potential adjustments.
Dutch practice also has a distinctive feature worth noting: the Netherlands has an active advance tax ruling (ATR) and advance pricing agreement (APA) culture, and several multinational groups have existing arrangements with the Belastingdienst concerning the tax treatment of specific entities or transactions. Those arrangements do not automatically address GloBE compliance, and groups holding Dutch ATRs should consider whether their ruling positions remain coherent in light of Pillar Two computations disclosed in the GloBE return.
Cross-Border Implications: Where DAC9 Exchange Creates Exposure
The exchange mechanism under DAC9 means that data filed with the Belastingdienst will, subject to the directive's conditions, flow to tax authorities in other member states where the group has constituent entities. Conversely, Dutch subsidiary-level data held by a foreign parent filing in another jurisdiction will be transmitted to the Belastingdienst. This bi-directional flow creates several practical exposures:
- Consistency risk: Where group entities in different jurisdictions are responsible for elements of the GloBE computation, small definitional differences – in the treatment of deferred tax, covered taxes, or excluded entities – can produce inconsistencies that are visible across the exchanged data.
- Substance scrutiny: The Netherlands' function as a holding and treasury jurisdiction means that Dutch entities may show relatively low GloBE ETRs in certain computation models, even where commercial substance is present. The GloBE return makes this visible to every receiving authority.
- Third-country parent groups: Groups headquartered outside the EU – for example, in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Singapore – that use a Dutch entity as their EU gateway need to assess whether a secondary or domestic top-up tax applies in the Netherlands and what filing entity designation best serves both compliance and administrative efficiency.
The interaction with other directives is also relevant. DAC8's crypto-asset reporting framework, now in force from 1 January 2026, imposes separate annual reporting obligations on crypto-asset service providers with a Dutch nexus. Although the substantive scope differs from DAC9, both obligations are administered by the Belastingdienst and supervised in their conduct-of-business dimension by the AFM and the DNB. Groups active in digital asset markets alongside conventional structures should manage these compliance streams in an integrated manner to avoid gaps.
Open Questions and Pending National Measures
Several issues remain open as national implementation is finalised. The precise electronic filing format accepted by the Belastingdienst for the GloBE Information Return has not been publicly confirmed as of this analysis. The penalty regime applicable to late, incomplete, or incorrect DAC9 filings under Dutch administrative law is subject to national rules that may differ from the approach taken in other member states. Groups should monitor publications by the Belastingdienst and any legislative amendments to the Wet minimumbelasting 2024 or the Dutch General Tax Act (AWR) that address these procedural points.
It is also worth noting that comparisons with other jurisdictions can inform strategic planning even where Dutch specifics are pending. Luxembourg, for example, which hosts a similarly large population of holding and financing entities, has published its own DAC9 transposition measures; the analytical framework developed for Luxembourg structures may offer useful reference points when modelling Dutch filing scenarios. A detailed analysis of the Luxembourg position is available in our DAC9 Pillar Two Filing – Luxembourg deep-dive.
Strategic Recommendations for Groups with Dutch Operations
Given the combination of substantive Pillar Two obligations already in force and the procedural architecture being put in place through DAC9, groups should approach Dutch compliance on two parallel tracks:
- Mapping and designation: Confirm which entity will file the GloBE Information Return vis-à-vis the Belastingdienst, document the legal basis for that designation, and ensure that the relevant entity has the operational capacity – data access, systems, and personnel – to prepare and submit the return accurately.
- Computation review: Verify that the GloBE ETR computation for Dutch constituent entities is consistent with the positions taken in the domestic minimum tax filing and with any intercompany arrangements. Pay particular attention to the substance-based income exclusion and the treatment of covered taxes, both of which are areas where Dutch structures frequently present complexity.
- ATR and APA review: Where existing advance rulings touch on the tax treatment of Dutch entities, assess whether those rulings need to be updated or supplemented in light of GloBE disclosures.
- Monitoring: Establish a process for tracking Belastingdienst guidance, legislative amendments, and OECD administrative guidance updates, given the pace of change in this area.
- Integrated compliance: Where the group has DAC8 obligations arising from Dutch-nexus crypto-asset activity, coordinate those reporting streams with the DAC9 programme to ensure consistent data governance and avoid inadvertent disclosure inconsistencies.
Groups considering adjustments to their Dutch holding or financing structures in response to Pillar Two should assess any corporate law implications, including the impact on shareholder arrangements, board composition requirements, and registration obligations, in conjunction with their tax analysis. Our corporate law practice for the Netherlands works alongside the tax team on integrated restructuring mandates.
Outlook
DAC9 represents a structural change in the information environment for multinational groups with EU operations. For the Netherlands, a jurisdiction that has built significant inbound investment activity on the quality of its legal and tax infrastructure, the introduction of a systematic exchange of GloBE data between EU authorities raises the stakes for compliance accuracy. Groups that treat the GloBE Information Return as a routine compliance exercise without reviewing the underlying computation and the Dutch-specific procedural requirements run a meaningful risk of exposure once the Belastingdienst begins using exchanged data in its audit and risk-profiling work.
The period between now and the consolidation of national implementation measures is precisely the right time to conduct a structured review, put filing arrangements in place, and engage proactively with advisers who understand both the EU-level framework and the specific operating environment in the Netherlands.
Our tax law team advises international groups on Pillar Two compliance, DAC9 filing obligations, and related Dutch regulatory matters. To discuss your group's position, please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page. Further information about our Dutch tax practice is available at ferrazwhitmore.com/services/tax-law/netherlands/.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.