Netherlands Transfer Pricing Updates and Changes 2026

The Dutch transfer pricing story is not mainly about a wave of brand-new rules. It is about a tax authority that is becoming more open about how it reviews risk, more focused on real business facts, and more prepared to challenge weak support where value, financing, or cross-border alignment do not hold together in practice.

For finance and tax teams, the message is simple: review your facts, your documentation, and your consistency across filings before the Dutch tax authority does it for you.

1. Amount B may matter in the Netherlands, but not in the way many groups assume

The Netherlands introduced the Bedrag B besluit 2025 with effect from 1 January 2025. But the decree is clear on an important point: Amount B is not being introduced as a domestic shortcut for Dutch taxpayers carrying out routine marketing and distribution activities in the Netherlands. Instead, the Dutch rules explain how the Netherlands will deal with situations where another jurisdiction (a so-called “covered jurisdiction”) applies Amount B and that creates a Dutch tax issue, including possible double-tax exposure to be resolved through corresponding adjustments or MAP.

That means the real risk is not whether a Dutch distributor can automatically rely on a simplified Dutch Amount B rule. It is whether a foreign Amount B outcome has been applied correctly, whether the activity really is routine, and whether the Dutch position has been aligned properly.

What to review: whether any foreign jurisdiction in the group is applying Amount B, whether the activity is genuinely routine distribution or marketing, and whether the Dutch and foreign transfer pricing positions are aligned.

2. Dutch courts are willing to test whether intragroup pricing reflects real economic support

A major Amsterdam Court of Appeal decision on 11 September 2025 reinforces the practical Dutch approach. In a case involving a Dutch group entity, the court largely upheld the tax authority’s position on several important points: most of the factoring fees charged by a Belgian group entity were found not to be arm’s length because they were priced on turnover rather than actual credit-risk exposure; guarantee fees paid on bonds to the UK parent were disallowed because the implicit support of group membership already provided the benefit; and the termination and relocation of valuable licence and distribution rights to the UK without compensation was found not to be arm’s length. The court did annul the multi-million euro penalty imposed on the exit, finding insufficient evidence of intentional misconduct – but the underlying transfer pricing adjustments were confirmed.

In parallel, the CGVP has published its own guidance on guarantee fees (May 2025) and on cost-based methods, and in December 2025 it released a practical toolkit for tax inspectors to identify transfer pricing risk. Taken together, these signals make clear that Dutch authorities and courts are looking beyond the existence of an intercompany charge and asking whether it is supported by real economic benefit, whether it duplicates group support, and whether value has left the Netherlands without appropriate compensation.

What to review: intragroup service and financing charges, guarantee fees, terminations of rights or functions, and situations where the Dutch entity appears to bear cost or lose value without strong support.

3. The Belastingdienst is becoming more explicit about the tools it uses to review transfer pricing risk

In 2025, the Belastingdienst published more detail on several tools it uses in practice. Its algorithm-register pages confirm the use of an external financial information database (Bloomberg and Orbis) to test pricing for financial transactions within multinational groups. They also confirm the use of the Bedrijfsvergelijkingstool to compare company data and assess valuation reports and related analyses using public financial information and peer-group testing.

Separately, the Belastingdienst has published information on its country-by-country reporting signalling rules, which help staff analyse CbC reports for transfer pricing risk and other base-erosion indicators. The published explanation is careful to note that the tool highlights where risk may sit and supports human review rather than replacing it – but the direction of travel is still clear.

This matters because it shows a more data-driven and more coordinated Dutch approach to transfer pricing enforcement. The issue is no longer only what the taxpayer submits. It is also whether the taxpayer’s position remains consistent when tested against external data, peer comparisons, and wider cross-border reporting.

What to review: financing benchmarks, valuation support, peer-group selection, CbC consistency, and whether the transfer pricing file matches the business reality reflected in tax returns and wider reporting.

4. The Dutch trend is fewer headline rule changes, but more practical enforcement

Taken together, these developments point in the same direction. The Netherlands is not telling a story of constant legislative redesign. It is telling a story of practical enforcement: more focus on what the facts actually show, more scrutiny of whether charges and adjustments are commercially supportable, and more use of data to identify where risk may sit.

For CFOs and tax managers, the practical question is simple: can the business explain the pricing, support the adjustment, and reconcile the story across documentation, returns, and cross-border reporting before an audit starts?

What to review: whether your Dutch transfer pricing model is still supported by the real facts, whether charges and guarantees are backed by defensible analysis, and whether wider filings and documentation tell a consistent story.

Final takeaway

The Netherlands transfer pricing story is no longer just about having a policy on paper. It is about real facts, defensible pricing, consistency across reporting, and readiness for a more data-driven tax authority.

For groups with Dutch entities, the right response is to test the weak points now: Amount B interactions, intragroup charges, guarantees, valuation support, and consistency across documentation and filings.

Want to discuss with our team how to stay prepared?

Get in touch with us.