BELGIUM Trends and Developments Contributed by: Christophe Romero and Senne Verholle, Aeacus Lawyers
erating activities are carried out through centralised platforms, a more traditional structure involving an identifiable intermediary may exist, potentially sup- porting a classification as movable income. This highlights the limitations of a uniform approach. The qualification of blockchain-based income should depend on the specific structure of the activity, rath- er than on a broad analogy with traditional financial income. Overall, the current administrative approach may not fully reflect the economic and technical characteris- tics of blockchain-based income streams, and a more nuanced, activity-based analysis is required. Increasing evidentiary and reporting pressure A further layer of complexity arises from increasing transparency obligations. As from 2026, reporting frameworks such as DAC8 and CARF will significant- ly enhance the availability of data to tax authorities. Crypto-asset service providers will be required to col- lect and report detailed transaction data, which will be exchanged between jurisdictions. This increases the likelihood that discrepancies between reported income and actual activity are identified. This evolution reinforces the importance of adopting defensible tax positions and maintaining proper docu- mentation. In an environment of increased transpar- ency, insufficient records may expose taxpayers to reassessment and disputes. Overall, while the introduction of a flat-rate tax pro- vides a degree of formal clarity, the Belgian tax treat- ment of crypto-assets remains characterised by qualification uncertainty and increasing compliance expectations. Data transparency and reporting: the Belgian perspective on DAC8 and CARF A key development in the Belgian blockchain and crypto-asset landscape is the expansion of transpar- ency through international reporting obligations. While uncertainty remains in the tax qualification of crypto- assets, the scope for non-disclosure is significantly reduced by the increasing availability of data to the Belgian tax authorities.
At EU level, DAC8 introduces a harmonised frame- work for reporting crypto-asset transactions, com- plemented by the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), which ensures cross-border information exchange. Belgium will implement these frameworks within its domestic tax system. As from 2026, crypto-asset service providers will be required to collect and report detailed information on users, including: • identifying data; • transaction activity; and • account balances or the value of crypto-assets held. This information will be transmitted to the Belgian tax authorities and exchanged between jurisdictions, with first reporting expected in 2027. From a Belgian perspective, this represents a signifi- cant shift. Historically, tax audits relating to crypto- assets were often triggered indirectly, for example through notifications from financial institutions under anti-money laundering (AML) obligations. In practice, tax authorities typically became aware of crypto activ- ity when funds entered the traditional banking system. Outside such entry and exit points, visibility was more limited. Many taxpayers therefore assumed that activ- ity confined within the crypto ecosystem remained largely outside the direct view of the authorities. The introduction of structured reporting obligations fun- damentally alters this dynamic. Tax authorities will increasingly have direct access to transaction-level data from crypto-asset service providers, expanding oversight to activities that do not involve the tradi- tional financial system. This increased visibility is likely to affect tax audits. While Belgian tax law continues to rely on qualitative assessments – particularly in distinguishing between normal asset management and speculative activity – the underlying data will become more readily available and verifiable, increasing scrutiny where discrepan- cies arise.
80 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook