A tax bailiff seizes machines in business premises while a supplier or financier claims ownership. Proof of ownership does not automatically end such seizure. Subject to conditions, the Dutch tax collector’s right over assets on the debtor’s premises, known as bodemrecht, can also affect third parties’ goods. Therefore investigate the tax debt, use of the premises and rights over each object together. This guide helps businesses, suppliers and financiers organise their files. If a sale is announced, immediate legal assessment is needed: an ordinary objection letter against the assessment is not a suitable solution.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Seizure, third-party asset rights and priority over premises assets
Bodembeslag is seizure of items classified as qualifying premises assets, or bodemzaken. The bodemrecht under Article 22 of the Collection of State Taxes Act gives the collector recovery rights over such third-party items for certain tax debts. The bodemvoorrecht concerns a different question: the ranking of the tax claim, including against a pledge over qualifying assets of the tax debtor. Ownership and pledge rights must therefore not be treated as the same position.
Obtain the seizure document and record which assessments are being collected. The right does not apply indiscriminately to every tax or every item in a building. For each assessment, investigate the statutory basis, and for each object why it supposedly falls within the scheme. Also keep disputes about the assessment amount separate from disputes about seizure: a valid tax debt does not automatically make seizure of the wrong object lawful.
2. Investigate the premises and use of the item
The term bodem here does not mean legal ownership of land. Relevant factors are the tax debtor’s actual use of a plot or space and independent control over it. A rented workshop may therefore qualify. In shared business premises, investigate which part is used by whom. Collect leases, floor plans, key arrangements and information on everyday access; registration at an address alone does not give a complete picture.
For furnishing or equipping premises, the items concerned serve durable use of the space, such as business inventory or machinery. Stock for sale serves a different function. Therefore describe what an object is actually used for and where it stood when seized. An invoice containing the word machine does not answer those questions. Make an inventory with serial numbers, photographs, purpose of use and location so that objects are not assessed collectively under one general description.
3. Substantiate third-party ownership and genuine ownership
A supplier with retention of title or a financier with a lease contract may have a specific right over an object. Keep the agreement, applicable terms, delivery documents and payments. Check that those documents actually concern the seized machine. Drawing up a contract afterwards or making a general statement that everything belongs to the holding company does not help reliably establish the legal position at the time of seizure and can cause new problems.
The Collection Guidelines contain policy under which genuine third-party ownership is in principle respected. Legal title alone is not decisive; the economic relationship also counts. Investigate who bears value risk, maintenance, insurance burdens and any residual value. The label hire or lease therefore provides no automatic exemption. Make a reasoned request that the collector apply this policy to the specific relationship and substantiate why your ownership amounts to more than security for a monetary claim.
4. Choose the legal route matching your position
For a third party asserting rights over seized movable goods, Article 22 provides an administrative appeal to the director, lodged with the collector. The statutory deadline is short: no later than seven days after seizure and before sale. If you learned of it later, policy on excusable or late filing may be relevant; this is not a new general deadline starting when you became aware. Keep proof of receipt and describe your right and the lifting of seizure requested.
This administrative appeal differs from a tax objection against an assessment. Civil remedies may also be relevant. A tax debtor’s opposition to enforcement of an enforcement order and third-party action against seizure each have their own basis and limits. The bodemrecht specifically limits the assertion of certain rights. Therefore have a lawyer determine the appropriate claim and any urgent measure; do not assume every letter filed automatically prevents sale.
5. Do not remove goods on your own initiative
Article 22bis may matter even before seizure. Pledgees and other rights holders may be required to notify an intended action causing an item to lose its status as a qualifying premises asset. Collection, enforcement or a change of use may trigger this. The tax debtor also has a notification duty for certain actions. An agreement with the business owner that you will collect everything tomorrow therefore does not determine whether this is permitted as against the collector.
Where the notification scheme applies, there is in principle a four-week waiting period, with rules for earlier release and subsequent implementation. The threshold concerns the relevant combined value when the agreement was entered into, not simply the price of one component to be removed. Have applicability and exceptions checked beforehand. A breach may result in a payment decision linked to execution value; ownership does not prevent that risk.
6. Record sale risk and discussions in writing
Ask when sale is planned and to whom supporting documents must be sent. State for each object why you seek lifting of seizure and add an organised selection of documents. Ask in writing whether sale is postponed and until when. An employee’s receipt of your message is not a promise of postponement. For telephone discussions, make a note with date, name, request and answer, and request confirmation of specific agreements.
A fictional example: a printer uses a financed printing press and boxes of paper for customers. The press, paper and premises each require separate assessment. A lease for the press does not automatically make the paper a qualifying premises asset, while the financier’s ownership does not automatically protect the press either. Therefore use a table for each object. This reveals which dispute concerns classification and which concerns ownership or policy.
7. Prepare for a focused urgent assessment
Bring seizure documents, assessment numbers, the sale announcement and a timeline of when you learned of events to your lawyer. Add contracts and proof of use and ownership for each item. Immediately disclose bankruptcy, a trustee or other seizing creditors: concurrent claims may change the handling. Identify your interest specifically, for example preserving a production line or returning one hired-out machine. Legal help can then match the necessary result and time actually available.
Also establish who may act and who bears litigation costs. A group company may have an interest without itself holding rights to the machine. Discuss whether negotiation, administrative appeal and urgent civil relief are needed alongside each other. Request clear limits for the initial engagement and next steps. The core is timely action with verifiable documents, without anticipating a favourable decision on ownership, ranking or sale.
Frequently asked questions
Is a leasing company’s machine always protected?
No. Contract terms, the economic relationship, classification as a qualifying premises asset and applicable policy must be examined separately.
Must I object to the tax assessment as a third party?
That is generally not the route for defending your ownership against seizure. Article 22 provides administrative appeal; civil steps may also be necessary.
May I collect my goods already?
First investigate seizure, notification duties and the waiting period. Unilaterally removing goods may worsen your position and create a separate payment obligation.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Invorderingswet 1990 — artikelen 17, 21, 22 en 22bis Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Leidraad Invordering 2008 — onderdelen 22.8 en 22.9 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Belastingdienst — zekerstelling recht op bodemzaak Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Tax law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology