BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Pierre E. Berger and Marc Van de Looverbosch, DLA Piper UK LLP (Brussels)
product with exposure to digital assets. The analysis is not driven by the use of blockchain alone, but by the status of the entity, the product and the sustain- ability claims being made. Greenwashing, misleading environmental claims and insufficient substantiation of sustainability statements are the main practical risks. 1.2.4 Tax Belgian tax law has not adopted a standalone crypto tax code. Blockchain and crypto-asset transactions are still analysed under general corporate income tax, personal income tax, VAT and reporting rules, with important recent changes for private capital gains. For Belgian companies, gains and losses on cryp- to-assets are generally part of taxable profits and deductible losses under ordinary corporate income tax principles, subject to accounting treatment, valu- ation and anti-abuse rules. The Office for Advance Tax Rulings confirmed in 2018 that gains realised by Belgian companies on cryptocurrency and ICO invest- ments are taxable and losses are deductible. For individuals, the previous distinction between normal management of private assets, speculative or abnormal management and professional activity remains important, but it has been affected by the new Belgian capital gains tax on financial assets intro- duced by the Law of 6 April 2026. As from 1 Janu- ary 2026, gains on financial assets, including crypto- assets within the meaning of MiCA, realised within the normal management of private assets are in principle subject to a 10% capital gains tax, with an annual exemption and transitional rules for gains accrued before 2026. Speculative or abnormal gains may still be taxed as miscellaneous income at 33% plus local charges, while gains realised in a professional context may be taxed as professional income at progressive rates. The most significant uncertainties remain factual. They include: • whether the activity is private, speculative or pro- fessional; • how to value illiquid tokens, NFTs and DeFi posi- tions;
• how to treat staking, lending, airdrops, liquidity mining and wrapped tokens; and • how to document acquisition value, wallet owner- ship, losses and transaction history. For VAT, the Court of Justice’s Hedqvist judgment remains the key reference for exchange services between traditional currencies and bitcoin-like virtual currencies. Other services, including mining, staking, custody, platform services and NFT-related transac- tions, must be analysed on their own facts. 1.2.5 Insolvency Belgium has not adopted a bespoke insolvency regime for blockchain businesses or CASPs. Winding-up and insolvency are governed by ordinary Belgian insolven- cy law, company law and, where relevant, the special regimes applicable to regulated financial institutions. The central issue in a crypto insolvency is whether users have a proprietary claim to identifiable crypto- assets or only a contractual claim against the insol- vent estate. This depends on the following: • the custody model; • the contractual terms; • segregation; • wallet architecture; • pooling; If the client’s assets can be identified and have not become part of the estate, recovery may be possible. If the relationship is merely contractual, the user will usually rank as an unsecured creditor unless security or statutory protection applies. MiCA reduces but does not eliminate this risk. CASPs providing custody and administration must segregate client crypto-assets from their own assets and main- tain arrangements designed to protect clients’ owner- ship rights, especially in insolvency. Issuers of ARTs and EMTs must comply with reserve, redemption, recovery and, where applicable, orderly wind-down requirements. These rules are not a complete resolu- tion regime comparable to bank recovery and resolu- tion, but they materially affect insolvency planning. • record-keeping; and • the applicable law.
65 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook