I would like to speak to an expert
What is a business asset and why would you rent it out?
A business asset consists of all the resources required to run a business. This includes both tangible elements, such as fittings and stock, and less visible components such as clientele, goodwill and trade name.
Instead of contributing these assets to their company, some entrepreneurs choose to retain them privately and rent them out. The company then pays a fee for the use of that business asset.
The tax advantage is straightforward: these revenues are in principle taxed as movable income, which is generally more favourable than taxation on professional income or a standard salary.
Why do the tax authorities take a critical view of this structure?
The tax administration often suspects that such structures are primarily set up to reduce tax liabilities. As a result, it frequently attempts to reclassify the income, for example as:
· remuneration for a company director
· professional income
In both cases, the tax burden is significantly higher.
However, such a reclassification requires proper grounds. The tax authorities must demonstrate that the legal form doesn’t correspond to reality, for example that there is simulation or tax abuse.
The case that led to the ruling
In the specific case, an entrepreneur rented out his business to his own company and declared the income as movable income. The tax authorities disagreed and reclassified this income as remuneration for a company director, resulting in additional tax assessments for the 2017 and 2018 tax years.
The entrepreneur challenged this decision and was successful, both at first instance and on appeal.
I would like to speak to an expert
What did the Court of Appeal in Antwerp decide?
The ruling of 3 March 2026 contains a number of important insights for practice.
1. Renting out a business asset is in itself fully legal
The Court confirms that this structure is a valid legal technique. There is nothing preventing entrepreneurs from renting out their business asset to their own company.
2. The tax authorities must prove simulation
A key point in the ruling is that the tax authorities were unable to provide evidence of simulation. This means they couldn’t demonstrate that the parties actually intended something different from what was set out in the agreement.
Without such evidence, a reclassification is not possible.
3. The so-called attraction principle doesn’t automatically apply
The tax authorities also relied on the attraction principle, under which income of company directors is often automatically treated as professional income.
The Court nuances this position, stating this principle doesn’t apply where the entrepreneur has ceased the activity and only acts as lessor of the business asset.
4. Reclassification as professional income was also rejected
An alternative argument put forward by the tax authorities, namely to treat the income as professional income, didn’t stand either. Once again, there was insufficient substantiation.
What were the consequences for the entrepreneur?
The ruling had clear financial consequences:
· the additional tax assessments were annulled
· the amounts paid must be refunded
· the entrepreneur is entitled to moratorium interest
This underlines that a well-designed structure can stand up legally.
I would like to speak to an expert
What does this mean for you as an entrepreneur in concrete terms?
The ruling confirms that renting out a business asset to your own company is possible without automatically causing tax issues.
However, this doesn’t mean that every arrangement will hold up. The specific implementation is decisive. Anyone wishing to pursue this approach must take a number of important conditions into account.
What are the crucial elements in this structure?
1. A market-based rental price
The remuneration must be realistic and in line with what is customary in the market. Excessive or artificial prices are more likely to be challenged.
2. A transparent and written agreement
Ensure there is a properly drafted contract in which all arrangements are clearly set out. This includes:
· the content of the business asset
· the term of the agreement
· the remuneration
· the responsibilities of both parties
3. Effective cessation of the activity
A crucial element from the ruling is that the lessor must cease their original activity.
If the same activity continues to be carried out, there is a risk that the tax authorities will still treat the income as professional income.
4. A genuine economic rationale
The structure must be more than a form of tax optimisation. It must also be economically logical and defensible.
So does this definitively settle the discussion?
Not entirely. The Belgian State may decide to lodge an appeal in cassation, which means the Court of Cassation could still rule on this matter.
Until there is legal certainty, caution remains advisable.
I would like to speak to an expert
Why this ruling is important for tax optimisation
This ruling confirms that the tax authorities cannot simply rely on assumptions. They must substantiate their position with concrete evidence.
For entrepreneurs, this means there is still room to optimise their income structure, provided this is done correctly.
We are happy to help!
Renting out a business asset to your own company can be a smart and fully legal way to structure your income differently. The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal in Antwerp confirms that the tax authorities cannot simply reclassify without concrete evidence of abuse or simulation. At the same time, it remains crucial to set up this structure correctly, document it properly and ensure it is economically justified. This is the only way to avoid disputes afterwards and stand on firm ground in the event of a tax audit.
Are you considering this structure? Let our specialists guide you. We will help you clearly map out both the opportunities and the risks so that you can make an informed decision.
