I. Introduction
Belgian tax enforcement is undergoing a structural transformation. Digitalisation, data mining and the gradual expansion of centralised reporting mechanisms are reshaping the relationship between taxpayers, financial intermediaries and the tax authorities. These trends were already visible in the recent evolution of claims enforcement, as discussed in our previous analysis on the growing role of the Central Point of Contact. A recent draft bill containing various fiscal provisions, already approved at first reading in the parliamentary Finance Committee, fits squarely within this broader evolution.
Two measures in particular stand out. First, the scope of the Central Point of Contact (Centraal Aanspreekpunt / Point de Contact Central, CAP) maintained by the National Bank of Belgium is set to be extended to cover crypto assets. Second, access to the CAP will be broadened to facilitate controls relating to the annual tax on securities accounts. Both measures significantly reinforce the informational position of the tax authorities and raise important questions regarding proportionality, legal safeguards and equal treatment of taxpayers.
II. The Central Point of Contact as a data hub
The CAP was originally conceived as a registry allowing the tax authorities to identify the existence of certain financial accounts and contracts held by taxpayers, without granting direct insight into transaction details. Over time, its scope and practical relevance have expanded considerably, particularly as it has become integrated into a wider ecosystem of tax databases and data-analytics tools.
Traditionally, access to the CAP by the tax authorities was subject to procedural safeguards, including the requirement that there be indications of tax fraud before active consultation was permitted. Recent legislative developments, however, indicate a gradual departure from this paradigm, favouring preventive and systemic control mechanisms over case-specific investigations.
The proposed extension of the CAP to crypto assets must be understood against this background.
III. Crypto assets brought within the scope of the CAP
The draft bill leaves little room for doubt that accounts linked to crypto assets will soon fall within the reporting obligations applicable to the CAP. The government explicitly justifies this extension by reference to European anti-money laundering rules, which increasingly view crypto assets as instruments that may be used to circumvent traditional financial intermediaries or to obscure illicit financial flows.
From a legal-technical perspective, the definition of a crypto-asset account is constructed through a chain of references to European regulations. In essence, a crypto-asset account is defined as an account on which crypto assets can be credited or from which they can be debited. The notion of crypto assets itself is aligned with the European framework governing crypto-asset markets, which defines them broadly as digital representations of value or rights that can be transferred and stored electronically using distributed ledger technology or similar systems.
The reporting obligation does not rest with individual taxpayers but with crypto-asset service providers. These are entities that professionally offer crypto-related services and are authorised to do so under the applicable European regulatory regime. The obligation applies both to providers established under Belgian law and to foreign providers operating in Belgium through a branch.
As is already the case for traditional financial accounts, reporting will not be limited to the mere existence of the account. Providers will also be required to communicate account balances on a periodic basis, thereby significantly enhancing the informational value of the CAP.
IV. Timing and interaction with European reporting obligations
The entry into force of the new reporting obligation for crypto-asset accounts is scheduled for 1 December 2026. This delayed implementation is intended to give the sector sufficient time to adapt its IT systems and internal processes. Nevertheless, the first reporting wave will already cover historical balances, including those as at 31 December 2025 and 30 June 2026.
This domestic reporting obligation must be read in conjunction with the forthcoming implementation of DAC 8, the European extension of the Common Reporting Standard to crypto assets. Under DAC 8, crypto-asset service providers will be required to report certain information to their domestic tax authorities, which will then be exchanged automatically between Member States.
As a result, Belgian tax authorities will receive information not only from Belgian providers via the CAP, but also from foreign providers through international exchange mechanisms. Conversely, the current draft amendments do not yet provide a comprehensive framework for outbound reporting by Belgian providers in respect of non-resident account holders, even though DAC 8 is due to be transposed by 1 January 2026. This asymmetry illustrates the piecemeal nature of the current legislative process.
V. Access to the CAP for securities account tax controls
The draft bill also addresses enforcement of the annual tax on securities accounts. This tax, which applies when the average value of securities held on an account exceeds a threshold of one million euros, includes a specific anti-abuse rule aimed at preventing artificial splitting of portfolios across multiple accounts.
In response to recommendations by the Court of Audit, the legislature now proposes to grant the tax authorities direct access to the CAP for the purpose of controlling compliance with this tax, including both domestic and foreign securities accounts.
What is particularly striking is that this access is not made conditional upon the existence of a suspicion of tax fraud. The government explicitly justifies this by arguing that the anti-abuse provision targets abusive behaviour rather than fraud in the strict sense. In order to verify whether accounts have been split with the aim of remaining below the threshold, the competent services must be able to consult the CAP without first establishing fraud indicators.
This marks a further shift away from the traditional safeguard that CAP access should be exceptional and suspicion-based.
VI. Consequences for taxpayer safeguards and equal treatment
The proposed rules create a notable distinction between taxpayers subject to the securities account tax and other taxpayers. For the former category, CAP consultation becomes possible without any prior demonstration of fraud, whereas for other taxes the classical safeguards continue to apply.
This differential treatment is justified by reference to the need to ensure the effectiveness of a specific anti-abuse provision. However, similar rebuttable presumptions of abuse exist elsewhere in Belgian tax law, notably in the general anti-abuse rule. The selective relaxation of safeguards in the context of the securities account tax therefore raises questions of consistency and proportionality.
More broadly, the cumulative effect of expanding reporting obligations and easing access conditions is a substantial increase in the tax authorities’ ability to reconstruct taxpayers’ financial positions. While transparency and effective enforcement are legitimate objectives, they must be balanced against legal certainty, data protection principles and the right to privacy.
VII. Conclusion
The extension of the CAP to crypto assets and the facilitation of its use for securities account tax controls represent another decisive step in the evolution of Belgian tax enforcement towards comprehensive, data-driven oversight. For taxpayers, these developments significantly reduce informational asymmetries and increase the likelihood of detection, even in the absence of concrete fraud indicators.
From a legal perspective, the measures raise important questions regarding the scope of administrative powers, the erosion of procedural safeguards and the equal treatment of taxpayers across different taxes. As crypto assets and wealth taxes continue to attract legislative attention, these issues are likely to become increasingly prominent in both advisory practice and litigation.
Careful monitoring of the final legislative text and its practical application will therefore be essential in the coming years.
Should you have any questions or require assistance, feel free to reach out to the authors of this article, Thomas Derval and Rik Strauven.
***
This newsletter does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Please consult with a legal counsel before taking any action based on the information provided.