Update Q&A Dutch tax authorities Minimum Tax Act

On 16 June 2026, the Dutch tax authorities published an updated version of the Question and Answer (Q&A) document relating to the Dutch Minimum Tax Act 2024. This update builds on the earlier version published on 2 September 2025, which we discussed previously (available here).

The Q&A document provides further clarifications from the Pillar Two Expertise Team on the application of the Dutch Pillar Two rules. It also incorporates the Dutch implementation of the common understanding agreed within the OECD Inclusive Framework on BEPS (IF) on 18 May 2026, concerning non-enforcement and penalty relief for non-compliance with local GloBE Information Return (GIR) obligations in cases where filing portals are not yet fully operational and/or there is uncertainty regarding the timely activation of bilateral exchange relationships.

What does this mean for your organisation?

The Q&A document is becoming increasingly detailed and is a key reference for how the Dutch tax authorities interpret and apply the Pillar Two rules in practice. It provides a practical interpretative framework for the application of the Dutch Minimum Tax Act 2024 (MTA 2024).

At the same time, the document does not constitute a formal policy statement and is not legally binding. It does not provide legal certainty and does not create rights for taxpayers. The Q&A has a dynamic nature and will be updated periodically based on practical experience and international developments, including OECD guidance and developments at EU level.

The Q&A document explicitly aligns with international interpretative frameworks, in particular the OECD Commentary on the Pillar Two rules and the related administrative guidance. Outcomes from international discussions (OECD and European Commission) are clearly reflected in the answers. This underlines that the Dutch approach remains closely embedded in the international Pillar Two framework.

The new and updated positions provide a clear view of the key practical challenges. It is therefore recommended to actively monitor relevant Q&A positions and integrate them into Pillar Two processes. Where material interpretative questions arise, advance clearance (rulings) with the Dutch tax authorities remains available.

Key themes of the Q&A document

The Q&A document follows the structure of the Dutch Minimum Tax Act 2024 and provides broad coverage of key Pillar Two topics, including:

scope and qualification of entities;

the mechanics of the different top-up taxes (IIR, UTPR and QDMTT);

determination of qualifying income and adjusted covered taxes;

calculation of the effective tax rate;

specific regimes (e.g. business reorganisations and holding structures);

administrative requirements and transitional rules.

The new and updated questions indicate an increasing focus on (i) practical implementation issues and interpretative differences, (ii) the application of the rules in complex situations, and (iii) alignment with international guidance issued by the OECD and the European Commission.

Scope and nature of the updates

The current version of the Q&A document contains a total of 158 questions and answers. Of these, 70 questions are newly included and 88 existing questions have been reassessed. Within these 88 reassessed questions, 61 questions have been updated on a purely editorial-technical basis (not marked as updated), 23 questions have been editorially clarified, and 4 questions have been substantively amended.

The group of 27 questions (23 editorial clarifications and 4 substantive amendments) has an updated date of June 2026. Updates are indicated with an * and, for each question, both the original publication date and the latest update date are provided.

The 4 substantively amended questions relate to:

Articles 3.1 and 13.1 MTA 2024 (domestic top-up tax);

Article 6.2(1) MTA 2024 (adjustments to qualifying income);

Article 6.2(1) MTA 2024 (non-qualifying taxes);

Article 8.1(4) MTA 2024 (jurisdictional election regimes).

Selected highlights from the Q&A

Dutch implementation of the OECD common understanding (GIR compliance)

The Q&A provides further clarification on compliance with GIR filing obligations in situations where central filing is impeded by practical issues, such as the absence of a fully operational filing portal or uncertainty regarding the timely activation of exchange relationships.

As a starting point, groups are required to file locally in the Netherlands unless the conditions for central filing via another jurisdiction are met.

Failure to file correctly or on time may in principle lead to administrative penalties and, in severe cases, criminal sanctions.

Against this background, the Dutch tax authorities confirm that in certain cases no sanctions will be imposed for failing to comply with local filing obligations until the end of the relevant exchange deadline (for FY 2024: 31 December 2026), provided that: (i) the GIR is centrally filed in a participating jurisdiction before that deadline; and (ii) a timely notification is submitted by the Dutch constituent entity.

This approach reflects the Dutch approach towards the IF common understanding and provides some practical flexibility for multinational groups in the first compliance cycle.

Substantively amended answers (publication: September 2025, update: June 2026)

Ad (i) Articles 3.1 and 13.1 MTA 2024 (domestic top-up tax)

The Q&A document indicates that, for the Dutch tax return filing obligation, the calculations of the top-up tax payable (including the qualified domestic minimum top-up tax) do not have to be submitted separately with the tax return. The calculations are included in the GIR. The tax return itself only includes the amounts of top-up tax payable (qualified domestic minimum top-up tax, income inclusion rule, undertaxed profits rule), which are paid through the tax return. If no top-up tax is payable in the Netherlands, no tax return needs to be filed.

Ad (ii) Article 6.2(1) MTA 2024 (adjustment to qualifying income)

The Q&A document indicates that, in the case of reorganisations between constituent entities that qualify as a tax-neutral reorganisation within the meaning of Article 9.3 MTA 2024, any result recognised in the financial statements is excluded for purposes of determining qualifying income (Article 6.2(1)(e) MTA 2024 and Article 9.3(2) MTA 2024). At the level of the acquiring constituent entity, the carrying values of the transferring entity are used.

The reorganisation is neutral for Pillar Two purposes. To the extent that (part of) the reorganisation is nevertheless subject to tax in the jurisdiction of the transferring entity, the adjustments do not apply to that part. Application of the arm’s length principle (Article 6.4 MTA 2024) may affect the amount of the excluded gain or loss, but has no further consequences.

Ad (iii) Article 6.2(1) MTA 2024 (non-qualifying taxes)

The Q&A document indicates that, in determining qualifying income, the net tax expense is adjusted only to a limited extent. Only covered taxes, taxes arising under Pillar Two rules and non-qualifying refundable imputation taxes are taken into account. Other taxes – which do not qualify as covered taxes – are not adjusted in the net result and therefore remain part of qualifying income.

Ad (iv) Article 8.1(4) MTA 2024 (jurisdictional election regimes)

The Q&A document indicates that stateless constituent entities are treated, for the purposes of the Pillar Two rules, as if they were located in a separate jurisdiction. This means that the effective tax rate and the top-up tax must be calculated separately for each stateless entity. Stateless entities may independently apply the jurisdictional election regimes as if they were a separate jurisdiction.

New answers (publication: June 2026)

Article 1.2(1) MTA 2024 – Joint operations

The Q&A document clarifies that joint operations are arrangements in which the participants have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities. These activities are generally accounted for using the proportional (pro rata) consolidation method, whereby the participant’s share is included in the financial statements on a line-by-line basis. This differs from a joint venture, where only a share in the net assets is held.

Where a joint operation is owned by a constituent entity, it also qualifies as a constituent entity, to the extent that its income is included in the consolidated financial statements using the proportional consolidation method (see paragraph 23 of the OECD Commentary on Article 1.2.2 of the Model Rules). In most cases, the joint operation will qualify as a flow-through entity (Article 1.2(1) MTA 2024).

The net income or net loss of a flow-through entity is reduced by the amount attributable to owners that are not group members (Article 6.14(1) MTA 2024). As a result, the share attributable to third parties is already eliminated when determining qualifying income, so that there is no need to further reduce this share in the calculation of the top-up tax (Article 4.2(1) MTA 2024).

The remaining income is treated as follows. First, it is allocated to any permanent establishments of the joint operation (which are treated as separate constituent entities) (Article 6.13 MTA 2024), and subsequently allocated to constituent entity owners, where they are subject to tax in another jurisdiction on that income and the joint operation is not the ultimate parent entity. Any remaining amount is treated as income of the joint operation itself.

The Q&A document marks this answer as being based on international alignment within the OECD and/or the European Commission, which underlines that this approach is consistent with the international application of the Pillar Two rules.

Article 6.2(1) MTA 2024 – assessment of portfolio interest (1)

The Q&A document indicates that, in assessing whether an ownership interest qualifies as a portfolio interest, reference is made to the total direct ownership interest held by the multinational group or domestic group. Direct interests held by different constituent entities in the same entity are aggregated.

The Q&A document provides the following example by way of illustration. The ultimate parent entity (UPE) of a group holds 80% in Constituent Entity (CE) 1 and 80% in CE 2. Both CE 1 and CE 2 each hold a direct interest of 5% in Entity A. Although the indirect interest of the ultimate parent entity in each of these interests amounts to 4% (80%x5%), the direct interests of CE 1 and CE 2 are aggregated for purposes of the assessment. Together, these amount to 10% (5%+5%), as a result of which there is no portfolio interest (i.e. less than 10%).

The Q&A document marks this answer as being based on international alignment within the OECD and/or the European Commission, which emphasises that this approach is consistent with the international application of the Pillar Two rules.

Article 6.2(1) MTA 2024 – assessment of portfolio interest (2)

The Q&A document indicates that, in assessing whether there is a portfolio interest, reference is made to the ownership interests directly held by the multinational group or domestic group. Indirect interests are not taken into account for this purpose.

The Q&A document provides the following example by way of illustration. The ultimate parent entity (UPE) of a multinational group holds a 40% interest in Entity A, which is accounted for under the equity method. In addition, a constituent entity (CE 1) holds a direct interest of 6% in Entity B, while Entity A holds a 70% interest in that same Entity B. Although, through Entity A, the group therefore holds an indirect interest in Entity B of 28% (40%x70%), the Q&A document indicates that, for the assessment of whether there is a portfolio interest, only the direct ownership interest of CE 1 is relevant. Since this interest amounts to 6% and is therefore less than 10%, there is a portfolio interest for Pillar Two purposes.

The Q&A document marks this answer as being based on international alignment within the OECD and/or the European Commission.

Article 8.8 MTA 2024 – Transitional CbCR safe harbour, “once out, always out”

The Q&A document indicates that the so-called “once out, always out” rule under the transitional CbCR safe harbour does not apply in situations where a multinational group was not subject to the MTA 2024 or comparable Pillar Two legislation in a previous reporting year for a specific jurisdiction.

This means that groups only need to make an election for application of the safe harbour in the first year in which the relevant jurisdiction actually falls within the scope of the Pillar Two legislation. Not applying the safe harbour in earlier years in which no applicable legislation was in force therefore has no adverse consequences for later years.

The Q&A document marks this answer as being based on international alignment within the OECD and/or the European Commission.

Article 8.8 MTA 2024 – Transitional CbCR safe harbour, consistency standard

The Q&A document indicates that the consistency standard under the transitional safe harbour is intended to prevent multinational groups from strategically using purchase price accounting (PPA) adjustments in the country-by-country report to meet the safe harbour conditions.

The starting point is that PPA adjustments may only be considered if they have been applied consistently in prior reporting years (for example, the 2023 CbCR for jurisdictions that apply the Pillar Two rules from reporting year 2024). If such adjustments were not included in the previous year, the group cannot introduce them at a later stage to qualify for the safe harbour.

An exception applies where the inclusion of PPA adjustments results from a legal obligation or external reporting requirements (for example, in the case of a business combination). In that case, the adjustments may still be considered.

The Q&A document marks this answer as being based on international alignment within the OECD and/or the European Commission.

Article 8.8 MTA 2024 – Transitional CbCR safe harbour, unintentional errors

The Q&A document indicates that an unintentional error in the country-by-country report does not preclude the report from still qualifying as a qualifying country-by-country report, provided that the error is corrected in a timely manner. If data from the qualifying financial statements has, by mistake, been incorrectly included in the country-by-country report, a corrected country-by-country report must be filed to preserve its qualifying status. In doing so, the other conditions of Article 8.8 MTA 2024 must also be met, including the filing of the amended report with the relevant tax authority.