Reversal and a heightened burden of proof can make a tax dispute considerably harder. Merely casting doubt on a correction is then often insufficient: you must demonstrate convincingly that the assessment is incorrect. Therefore first check why the inspector wants to apply this evidential rule. The substantive calculation follows. A tax lawyer can assess both questions together and prevent a file consisting solely of isolated objections.
Sources (4)
On this page
Establish who normally has to substantiate each point
Not every evidential problem involves reversal. In ordinary tax proceedings, the inspector must, for example, substantiate elements increasing income, while the taxpayer generally makes a deduction plausible. Having to produce expense receipts therefore does not automatically mean a special sanction applies. Ask the inspector which evidential rule they consider applicable to each disputed issue.
For this, prepare an overview of corrections with amount, tax year, reason and available documents. Beside each correction, indicate whether the dispute concerns facts, a legal classification or missing substantiation. Your lawyer can then specifically examine whether a heightened standard actually applies or merely the ordinary burden already associated with your own position.
Check the route involving the required tax return
An important ground for reversal is failure to file the required return. Conditions apply to substantive deficiencies: the tax understated must be substantial both relatively and absolutely, with the required awareness when filing. On 9 October 2026, the Supreme Court confirmed that the inspector must substantiate those conditions under ordinary evidential rules. Not every error meets them.
Therefore retain the return actually filed, calculations and documents available to you at the time. Record the information your adviser received and the explanation you were given. A difference identified afterwards does not itself establish what you knew or should have known on filing. Also have an adviser assess whether the dispute concerns a factual error or a legal position requiring a different assessment.
Assess the scope and different treatment of return questions
For substantive deficiencies meeting the conditions, the judgment of 9 October 2026 states that reversal may affect the entire disputed assessment. Therefore do not assume without investigation that it is limited to the component where the first error was found. At the same time, the tax assessment and year concerned must be identified; files with several assessments require a separate overview.
The Supreme Court describes a different assessment for questions in the return form that were unanswered or answered incorrectly. Relevant factors include the deficiency’s importance, blameworthiness and the answer’s relevance to the disputed issue. Therefore have your lawyer identify exactly whether the allegation concerns amounts in the return, an unanswered question or both. General wording may conceal significant differences in the evidential position.
Investigate a final formal information decision
Another route involves a formal information decision concerning failures in information provision or record keeping. Obtain the decision itself with earlier questions, your answers and any objection and appeal documents. Investigate whether the decision has become final and which obligations, taxes and years it concerns. An ordinary reminder about a question letter is not the same document.
Also have the significance and seriousness of the established deficiencies assessed. Do not assume that sending a folder later undoes every earlier decision without further assessment. Conversely, the absence of a formal information decision is not a universal defence: the required-return route may be independently relevant. The file must therefore visibly distinguish both possible bases.
A reasonable estimate remains necessary even with reversal
Reversal does not automatically make an arbitrary amount lawful. The assessment must rest on a reasonable estimate. The Supreme Court has explained that this requirement specifically prevents assessments being set arbitrarily. Therefore investigate which data, comparisons and assumptions the inspector uses for turnover, profit or income. Request missing calculations and reconciliation with your records.
A practical counter-analysis identifies a specific error: the same bank receipt was counted twice, a loan is treated as turnover or assumed sales capacity does not match opening hours. Support each point with traceable documents. Your own unsourced estimate or merely saying the correction feels unrealistic gives your lawyer less basis for effectively challenging the calculation.
Build convincing rebuttal evidence for each correction
When the heightened standard applies, a coherent reconstruction matters. For example, connect a receipt to a loan agreement, the lender’s payment and later repayments. Also state what is missing and which independent information can still be obtained. Do not create backdated documents giving the impression they already existed during the tax year.
Work with a single figures overview reconciling with the return, records and bank data. Have a bookkeeper or accountant check the reconciliation and your lawyer determine which documents the legal defence requires. An expert explanation does not replace underlying data. Therefore agree who retains source files and how each revised calculation remains identifiable as a new version.
Address the penalty and procedural steps separately
Evidential rules for the tax assessment must not automatically be transferred to a penalty. The inspector bears the burden of proving the penalty allegation. Therefore separately discuss which conduct is alleged, which facts are used and how the penalty was calculated. An assessment surviving because convincing rebuttal evidence is lacking does not automatically prove intent or gross negligence.
For an initial meeting, bring assessments, decisions, returns, correction calculations and correspondence in date order. Mark current response and remedy deadlines; waiting for a complete reconstruction may be procedurally disadvantageous. Request a phased engagement: first assess the basis and deadlines, then develop evidence and the estimate. Feasibility depends on the specific documents and cannot be inferred solely from the term reversal.
Frequently asked questions
Does an error in the return immediately mean reversal?
No. The conditions depend on the type of deficiency. For substantive deficiencies, relevant factors include the amount of tax not levied and awareness when filing.
Is reversal never possible without a formal information decision?
That is too general. Failure to file the required return may also provide an independent basis. Have the inspector identify their basis precisely.
Is the amount then fixed irrevocably?
No. The estimate must be reasonable and you can submit evidence against the assessment. A heightened evidential standard does, however, demand stronger substantiation.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Hoge Raad 9 oktober 2026 — ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1484 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Belastingdienst — bewijslast Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Hoge Raad 31 mei 2013 — ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BX7184 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Belastingdienst — Handboek Controle Accessed: 2026-10-23
Related articles
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