In the Netherlands, many high net worth families take a “stewardship” approach to succession planning: wealth is viewed as family capital that should be preserved and managed for the benefit of current and future generations, rather than fragmented or consumed. This often goes hand in hand with a stronger focus on family governance and continuity, including clear decision-making rules and alignment between branches of the family.

The tension between freedom of testation and family protections remains a live topic: there have been many calls for abolition of the forced share for children (legitieme portie), however, a recent report found that the concept of abolition is not as supported as previously thought.

For family businesses, two parallel trends are commonly seen. First, families pursuing intergenerational business succession frequently incorporate a Dutch foundation with fiduciary purposes (Stichting Administratiekantoor, STAK) to separate economic ownership from voting control, allowing the next generation to participate economically while the founder can retain influence during the transition. Second, where there is no suitable successor (or where the next generation is unwilling to run the business), families are increasingly open to professionalising governance and considering a partial or full sale to the market, including private equity, while seeking to safeguard the company’s legacy and employee continuity.

Business transfer planning is also shaped by the political sensitivity around tax incentives for family business continuity. Recent parliamentary debates on reforms to the Dutch business succession relief (bedrijfsopvolgingsregeling, BOR) have been postponed and seem to be, for now, off the table.

A further trend, particularly among the next generation, is a growing focus on contributing positively to society. This is reflected in increased attention to responsible ownership and philanthropy, and more active collaboration with charitable initiatives alongside (rather than instead of) long-term family wealth preservation.

Private wealth in the Netherlands is relatively diverse, and no single “old money”, “new money” or industry cohort consistently dominates client expectations or planning strategies. Instead, planning is typically driven by the composition of the family’s assets (eg, an operating family business, real estate and/or liquid investment portfolios) and by family governance dynamics, including the preferred balance between control and early economic participation by the next generation.

Concept of Domicile

The Netherlands does not generally apply a common law concept of “domicile” as an all-purpose connecting factor for estate planning. Instead, different connecting factors apply depending on the topic, most commonly (i) tax residence (for Dutch gift and inheritance tax) and (ii) habitual residence and/or nationality (for succession and family law matters).

Gift and Inheritance Tax

For Dutch gift and inheritance tax, exposure is primarily determined by whether the donor (gift tax) or the deceased (inheritance tax) qualifies as a resident of the Netherlands for tax purposes at the time of the transfer. Tax residence is assessed based on the full factual picture and whether there is a durable personal connection with the Netherlands (eg, having a home available, where family life is centred, work and economic interests, banking and memberships/subscriptions). Where the donor/deceased is resident (or deemed resident under specific emigration rules), Dutch gift/inheritance tax can apply to worldwide transfers. If the donor/deceased is not (deemed) resident of the Netherlands, no Dutch gift or inheritance tax is levied over Dutch situs assets.

Wills Governing Worldwide Estates

A will can be executed in the Netherlands (typically by notarial deed) regardless of nationality. Whether Dutch law governs the succession to a person’s worldwide estate is generally determined under the EU Succession Regulation: as a rule, the law and courts of the state of the deceased’s habitual residence apply, but a testator can usually choose the law of their nationality to govern the succession of their worldwide estate. For non-Dutch nationals living in the Netherlands who already have a foreign will, it is often advisable to review and co-ordinate it with Dutch/EU succession rules to avoid inconsistencies and unintended outcomes.

Divorce, Marital Property and Inheritance-Related Claims

Jurisdiction (and often applicable law) for divorce, marital property matters and inheritance-related claims is also generally driven by habitual residence (and in some cases nationality) under the relevant EU instruments, rather than by any “domicile” concept.

In the Netherlands, Dutch personal income tax is levied if a person is a tax resident (full liability) or if a person has certain Dutch sourced assets (limited tax liability). Dutch sourced assets include, among others, shares in a Dutch company or Dutch real estate.

A person would become fully liable to Dutch personal income tax on its worldwide income and wealth if a person is considered a resident for Dutch tax purposes. This is the case if a person has a “durable bond of a personal nature” with the Netherlands. To assess this, all relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, such as:

• the availability of a primary residence in the Netherlands (through ownership, rental, friends and family or any actual right of use – even on demand);
• whether the person had a place of habitual abode in the Netherlands, (for which is relevant, for example, whether they visited a doctor, maintained subscriptions, had a bank account and local phone number in the Netherlands); and
• where the partner and children are located.

Intentions or the number of days spent in or outside the Netherlands are of lesser relevance. It may well be that a person has a durable bond with different countries. However, the strongest durable bond is not necessarily decisive for Dutch tax residency. Moreover, even though the centre of vital interests may lie in one state, this does not rule out the possibility to have a “durable bond of a personal nature” with the Netherlands. The concept of domicile is not relevant for assessing Dutch personal income tax liability. 

Under Dutch intestacy rules, if a person dies leaving a spouse and one or more children, the spouse and children are heirs in equal shares. In such cases, the estate is in principle settled in terms of statutory division (wettelijke verdeling). Under this system, the entire estate passes to the surviving spouse by operation of law. The surviving spouse therefore becomes the legal owner of all estate assets and must settle all debts, including any inheritance tax due by the children and other costs relating to the settlement of the estate. This means the estate is immediately at the surviving spouse’s disposal, allowing the spouse to continue living as before as far as possible.

Although the children are entitled to their respective shares, they do not receive their inheritance immediately. Instead, each child’s share is converted into a monetary claim against the surviving spouse. As a result, the surviving spouse acquires the entire estate but also incurs a corresponding debt to the children.

The children’s claims generally bear interest. In principle, both the principal amount of the claims and the accrued interest only become due and payable upon the surviving spouse’s death. At that point, the claims including interest are deducted from the surviving spouse’s estate and therefore reduce the taxable base of that estate. This may lead to significant inheritance tax savings overall.

If the surviving spouse does not wish to apply the statutory division, they may unilaterally reverse it within three months of the deceased’s death. A partial reversal is not possible; the reversal applies to the entire estate. Reversal has retroactive effect to the moment the estate devolved, with the result that the heirs become co-owners of the estate’s assets and jointly liable for its debts. The heirs must then agree among themselves on how to settle and divide the estate. The power to reverse the statutory division rests exclusively with the surviving spouse; a child has no right to do so.

If a child predeceases the deceased, that child’s descendants (ie, the deceased’s grandchildren) inherit by right of representation. Representation also applies if a child rejects the inheritance. If the relevant child has no descendants, that child’s share accrues to the other heirs in equal parts.

If there is no surviving spouse but the deceased leaves one or more children (or descendants inheriting by representation), the statutory division does not apply. In that case, those heirs inherit the estate jointly and in equal shares. The estate then forms an undivided community, meaning that, in principle, the heirs must administer, settle and divide the estate jointly (unless an executor or administrator has been appointed in a will).

If there is no surviving spouse and no (grand)children qualify as heirs, more distant relatives inherit under the statutory order (in broad terms: first parents and siblings and their descendants; then grandparents and their descendants; and thereafter more remote ascendants and their descendants), and ultimately the state of the Netherlands.

Finally, intestacy can be departed from by making a will. A will can, for example, appoint additional heirs or disinherit heirs, adjust the heirs’ shares, include bequests or legacies, appoint an executor of the estate and provide for administration or other specific rules relating to an heir’s entitlement. However, a testator’s freedom to dispose of the estate is subject to mandatory family rights.

Dutch law recognises several mandatory family protections (“family rights”) that can restrict freedom of testation.

Dutch law does not provide for an elective share for the surviving spouse (or registered partner). Instead, the main protections for a surviving spouse are found in (i) the intestacy rules, including the statutory division described in 3.1 Intestate Succession, and (ii) mandatory statutory rights that may apply even if the spouse is (partly) excluded by will.

In particular, the surviving spouse may, under certain conditions, claim continued use of the dwelling and household effects for a period of up to six months following death. This right is also available to any person who shared a household with the deceased; a cohabitation agreement is not required. In addition, the surviving spouse (provided they were living in the dwelling at the time of death) may claim a usufruct over the dwelling and household effects and, where necessary for maintenance, a usufruct over other estate assets. These usufruct rights do not extend to an unmarried cohabiting partner, even if a cohabitation agreement exists.

These statutory rights are mandatory in the sense that they cannot be removed by the testator through a will. However, they are only effective if the beneficiary actively invokes them within the applicable statutory time limits; if not invoked in time, they lapse.

Children have additional statutory protections.

A child may be (partially) disinherited, but remains entitled to claim their forced share (legitieme portie), which is a monetary claim equal to one half of the child’s statutory intestate share (rather than a right in rem to specific assets). Gifts by the deceased during their lifetime and certain other benefits may be brought into the forced share calculation and may be subject to reduction (inkorting) to safeguard forced share entitlements. The decedent may include a so-called “non-demandability clause” (niet-opeisbaarheidsclausule) in their will, which may postpone the forced share becoming due and payable until the death of the surviving spouse or an unmarried cohabiting partner (in the latter case, provided a notarial cohabitation agreement has been entered into). The forced share must be claimed by the child within five years of the decedent’s death.

Furthermore, where the statutory division applies, children have certain “will rights” (wilsrechten) to seek transfer of assets and/or security for the satisfaction of their monetary claims. These will rights may be invoked in specified situations – ie, if the surviving spouse intends to remarry or enter into a registered partnership (in which case the surviving spouse is entitled to retain a right of usufruct), or if the surviving spouse dies after having remarried or entered into a registered partnership. Similar protective rights exist in stepfamily situations. The decedent may exclude these will rights in a will.

In addition, Dutch law provides certain other statutory rights that may benefit (certain) children and are primarily monetary in nature. For example, a minor child may, if necessary, claim a lump sum for their care and upbringing, and an adult child who is not yet 21 may claim a lump sum insofar as needed for maintenance or study. Further, a child, stepchild, foster child, child-in-law or grandchild may claim compensation (often as a lump sum) for having performed work without appropriate remuneration during adulthood in the deceased’s household or in the deceased’s business or profession. Finally, under strict conditions, a child or stepchild may request transfer of the deceased’s enterprise or shares in a limited liability company to that (step)child (or their spouse), provided the (step)child has a compelling interest, the entitled party’s interests are not seriously prejudiced and the business is continued by (the spouse of) the (step)child or they will (in future) act as a director. These other statutory rights are only effective if the beneficiary actively invokes them within the applicable statutory time limits, failing which they lapse.

Marital property is a key factor in Dutch succession planning, because the estate first needs to be determined by applying the spouses’ matrimonial property regime. Upon death, any matrimonial community is dissolved and settled; the surviving spouse is entitled to their share under matrimonial property law, and only the deceased’s share (plus any separate private assets and liabilities) forms part of the estate. Depending on the matrimonial arrangement, a spouse may also have a settlement claim at death, which can affect the size of the estate available for heirs and legatees.

Lifetime planning therefore often focuses on (i) structuring ownership (eg, private assets versus community assets) and (ii) aligning matrimonial arrangements with the intended testamentary disposition.

During life, spouses generally have the ability to manage and dispose of assets, but Dutch law contains important spousal consent requirements for certain transactions. In practice, one spouse cannot freely dispose of all marital assets without the other spouse’s involvement where statutory consent is required (eg, for certain disposals/encumbrances or gifts); if consent is lacking, the transaction may be challenged.

In the Netherlands, pre- and postnuptial agreements (huwelijkse voorwaarden/partnerschapsvoorwaarden) are generally recognised and enforceable, provided they are executed by notarial deed before a Dutch civil law notary. For third-party effects (in particular vis-à-vis creditors), registration in the matrimonial property register is relevant.

Nuptial agreements are frequently used in estate planning. They primarily operate in property law (matrimonial/partnership property regime) and therefore affect succession planning indirectly by determining what assets belong to the deceased’s estate (eg, separate property versus (limited) community property), and whether, on death, the surviving spouse/partner has a contractual claim against the estate (for example under a settlement/equalisation clause payable at death), which is generally treated as a debt of the estate.

Dutch law, however, generally prohibits binding “inheritance agreements” (erfovereenkomsten) – ie, contracts that purport to determine who will inherit or otherwise dispose of a future estate as such. Marital/partnership agreements therefore cannot replace a will for allocating inheritance. Certain clauses commonly used in practice, such as survivor allocation clauses (verblijvingsbedingen), are typically characterised as property-law mechanisms affecting ownership upon death, rather than as permissible “inheritance contracts”. In practice, succession planning is usually implemented through a will, combined with the marital/partnership agreement to structure ownership and (death-triggered) settlement claims.

Enforceability may be affected in specific circumstances. Disputes may arise over the interpretation of specific clauses – particularly settlement/equalisation clauses – which under Dutch law is assessed in accordance with the Haviltex standard (ie, the meaning that the parties could reasonably attribute to the clause in the circumstances and what they could reasonably expect from each other, rather than a purely literal reading). Moreover, a spouse/partner may seek annulment of the agreement on grounds of defective consent (eg, mistake, fraud, undue influence), or a court may mitigate or set aside the effect of (parts of) the agreement where its application would be unacceptable in the specific circumstances under the standards of reasonableness and fairness (eg, an extreme outcome caused by unforeseen circumstances). Finally, where creditors are involved, effectiveness vis-à-vis third parties may depend on registration in the matrimonial property register, and asset shifts resulting from the agreement (or its amendment) may be scrutinised under creditor-protection rules, including avoidance actions (actio pauliana) in case of creditor prejudice.

Lifetime Transfers

Lifetime transfers are generally subject to Dutch gift tax. The Netherlands does not have a broad “lifetime transfer exemption” or unified credit that allows substantial wealth to be transferred free of gift tax; instead, material gifts typically trigger gift tax unless a specific exemption or relief applies. Depending on the asset, income tax roll-over rules (eg, for qualifying business assets, held privately or via a company structure) and Dutch real estate transfer tax may also be relevant.

Alternative Planning Considerations

In practice, planning is often structured around three main approaches.

• Lifetime transfer of qualifying business assets – where available, a combination of business succession relief for gift tax purposes and income tax roll-overs can materially reduce the overall tax cost; this is generally more limited for investment assets.
• Gifting to children followed by family investment planning – an outright gift (often cash/securities) followed by a jointly aligned investment approach, with the aim that future investment returns and value growth accrue (in part) to the next generation.
• Generation-skipping investing – gifts made directly to grandchildren combined with long-term investing, to have future growth accrue to the intended end beneficiaries earlier and potentially reduce taxation at the intermediate generation.

In the Netherlands, the tax treatment of transfers on death depends significantly on the type of asset. Where the deceased is Dutch tax resident, Dutch inheritance tax is, in principle, levied on the worldwide estate, generally based on the fair market value of the assets at the date of death.

For Dutch personal income tax, there is no single “step-up in basis” rule that applies across all asset categories. For privately held real estate and other box 3 assets, taxation is currently based on an annual deemed return methodology, so a step-up is typically not relevant (noting that this may change under the intended box 3 reforms currently targeted for 1 January 2028). For substantial shareholdings (box 2), the death of the shareholder may trigger Dutch income tax on latent gains unless a roll-over applies; where roll-over treatment is available (including in a business succession context), the heirs generally take over the deceased’s historic acquisition price (ie, no step-up).

In the Netherlands, lifetime wealth transfers are commonly made through gifts. Such gifts are often structured with protective clauses that allow the donor (and/or the family) to retain a degree of control, for example by placing the gifted assets under an administration (bewind) and/or by transferring wealth in phases so that the next generation gradually assumes responsibility.

Lifetime succession planning is often structured around three main approaches:

• Lifetime transfer of qualifying business assets – where available, a combination of business succession relief for gift tax purposes and income tax roll-overs can materially reduce the overall tax cost; this is generally more limited for investment assets.
• Gifting to children followed by family investment planning – an outright gift (often cash/securities) followed by a jointly aligned investment approach, with the aim that future investment returns and value growth accrue (in part) to the next generation.
• Generation-skipping investing – gifts made directly to grandchildren combined with long-term investing, to have future growth accrue to the intended end beneficiaries earlier and potentially reduce taxation at the intermediate generation.

The transfer of wealth commonly involves the incorporation of a Dutch foundation with fiduciary purposes (Stichting Administratiekantoor, STAK) to separate economic ownership from voting control, allowing the transfer of wealth while retaining influence and control.

In the Netherlands, the use of lifetime succession planning mechanisms is influenced by the conditions of tax law and practical  “defensibility” considerations.

• Business succession relief (gift/inheritance tax) and income tax roll-overs – the availability of relief is conditional (eg, qualification as business assets versus investment assets, and meeting holding/continuation-type requirements). These conditions can be a deal-breaker in some cases and often affect timing, meaning families may postpone a transfer or restructure first to preserve eligibility.
• Gifts combined with intra-family leverage (parent loans) – where children/grandchildren invest using (partly) debt funding from parents, a key issue is whether the interest rate and loan terms are arm’s length. A non-businesslike rate may trigger challenge and (partial) recharacterisation as an additional gift, so careful alignment between client and adviser and proper documentation are important.

Another relevant consideration with minors is that the order of steps matters. For example, a gift “subject to a charge/obligation” in favour of minor children cannot always be implemented freely and may require approval from the subdistrict court (kantonrechter), which can impact feasibility and timing.

Control and disposition of digital assets is in principle determined by succession law. However, the contractual terms of service of digital service providers (such as email, cloud storage and social media platforms), and privacy and confidentiality rules may restrict access and transfer. In practice, executors and heirs may face practical barriers, such as providers refusing to grant access to accounts or content, or where the disclosure of data is limited because it contains personal data of the deceased and/or third parties.

Cryptocurrency raises additional concerns. Control is typically determined by control over private keys and other access credentials; without these, assets may be irretrievable.

Where crypto is held through an intermediary (for example, an exchange), regulatory requirements (including KYC and anti-money laundering checks) may affect the release or transfer of assets to heirs. In addition, estates often need to address valuation volatility and evidentiary issues (eg, proving holdings and transaction history).

In the Netherlands, digital assets and online accounts should be addressed expressly in the estate planning process, because their control and transfer are often driven not only by succession law but also by providers’ terms of service and by privacy/confidentiality constraints, which can create practical access barriers for executors and heirs.

A practical first step is to map the testator’s “digital estate” (eg, email, cloud storage, social media, subscriptions, domain names and crypto assets) and to decide what should happen to each category (eg, deletion, archiving, transfer to heirs, or memorialisation). Consider appointing a dedicated “digital/online executor” and leaving clear instructions (eg, whether a Facebook account should be converted into a memorial account or deleted; who may access cloud photos; whether messaging history should be disclosed or erased).

Access planning is crucial. Common approaches include keeping an up-to-date list of logins and recovery codes in a secure place, using a password manager and sharing only the master password, or using a “digital vault” accessible to the (digital) executor. In Dutch practice, digital vaults are offered by civil-law notaries as well as by other market participants. Where available, platform-specific legacy tools should be used (eg, Facebook settings, Google inactivity preferences, and an Apple ID legacy contact).

Crypto-assets require special attention: control typically depends on control over private keys and access credentials, without which assets may be irretrievable; where crypto is held via an intermediary, additional KYC/AML requirements may delay or complicate transfers.

While Dutch law is still developing in this area, increasing awareness and the growing use of platform legacy tools and practical access arrangements are shaping current practice, and cross-border estates may also be influenced by US-style uniform approaches to fiduciary access to digital assets.

In the Netherlands, family business succession planning is typically centred on transferring qualifying business assets in a manner that preserves access to the main Dutch business succession tax facilities (for gift/inheritance tax and, where available, income tax roll-over treatment).

For this, common strategies include the following.

• Lifetime or deathtime transfer of qualifying business interests, often preceded by “clean-up” steps to separate business assets from non-qualifying/investment assets.
• Governance/control structuring (eg, through a holding structure and/or a Dutch STAK) to separate economic entitlement from voting control and to facilitate staged transfers within the family, could be combined with a family statute.
• Valuation planning and substantiation – in practice, parties often prepare a valuation on a discounted cash flow (DCF) basis. Discounts for lack of marketability may be considered in limited cases, but are typically applied cautiously.

For real estate businesses, the planning is more challenging. Especially where the activities also involve third-party leasing of real estate because their eligibility for the business succession facilities is significantly reduced or even excluded. In those cases, solutions may include partial insurance cover and/or earlier lifetime transfers, with transfer tax implications considered upfront.

Dutch business succession planning strategies are primarily shaped by the conditions attached to the Dutch business succession tax facilities (in both gift/inheritance tax and, where available, income tax roll-over treatment). As a result, families often focus first on whether the assets qualify as business assets rather than investment assets, and whether the relevant (cumulative) requirements can be met. In practice, this frequently drives pre-transfer restructuring (to “clean up” non-qualifying assets) and can also lead to postponing a transfer to reduce the risk of losing the relief.

A second key driver is valuation, because the tax outcome is highly sensitive to the value allocated to the business. In practice, the Dutch tax authorities often expect the “real value” to be supported using a discounted cash flow (DCF) approach, which affects documentation and negotiation strategy. While a discount for limited marketability may be arguable in specific cases, the room for applying such discounts is typically limited and can be a discussion point with the tax authorities.

Finally, recent and upcoming limitations around real estate-related activities can materially affect succession strategies. Where third-party leasing of business real estate is now excluded from the business succession facilities (eg, effective as of 1 January 2025), this may lead to significant cash tax costs on death (income tax and inheritance tax), making liquidity planning (including partial insurance solutions) more relevant. If an alternative route is to transfer (part of) the business during life, the plan must be co-ordinated carefully because Dutch real estate transfer tax can become a key friction cost, and civil law constraints can also matter.

The Netherlands is a civil law jurisdiction. For that reason, estate and wealth planning commonly relies on Dutch civil law instruments (in particular foundations (stichtingen) and contract-based arrangements) rather than common law trust concepts.

A Dutch foundation is a legal entity with legal personality and no members or shareholders, and its governance can be tailored to a significant extent in its articles of association. Foundations are used both for charitable purposes and for family/fiduciary structuring, within the boundaries of Dutch rules on distributions (while allowing contractual payment obligations where relevant).

A widely used Dutch planning vehicle is the foundation used as a fiduciary administrator (stichting administratiekantoor, STAK). In a typical STAK structure, the STAK becomes the legal owner of assets (most commonly shares) and issues depositary receipts (certificates) to family members; these receipts represent the economic entitlement (eg, dividends and value growth) while voting control is exercised by the STAK board. This is particularly attractive where a family wishes to transfer economic interests while retaining (or staging) control and professionalising governance during an intergenerational transition. The rights of depositary receipt holders are largely determined in the trust conditions (administratievoorwaarden); as a rule, holders cannot force the STAK to resolve on distributions, and the STAK (as shareholder) exercises voting rights and decides on dividend distributions at shareholder level (including in a Dutch limited liability company).

A trust cannot generally be created under Dutch law as a domestic legal form. However, in cross-border situations, foreign trusts are frequently encountered and Dutch advice then focuses on their interaction with Dutch civil law and (where relevant) Dutch tax classification. Where trust-like results are desired within Dutch law, families may use:

• a foundation structured as a civil law trust (assets are donated to a foundation subject to an obligation to distribute income and/or capital to specified (classes of) beneficiaries, with the practical enforceability depending on the wording of the deed and governance set-up); and/or
• a mutual fund (fonds voor gemene rekening, FGR) or limited partnership (commanditaire vennootschap, CV), both being a flexible contractual pooled investment arrangement in which legal title to the assets is held by an administrator for the risk and account of the participants. In succession planning, transfers of participations are usually restricted in the fund conditions. An FGR and a CV are generally treated as transparent for Dutch corporate income tax and dividend withholding tax purposes.

In the Netherlands, the main opportunities and obstacles around foundations (including STAKs) and foreign trusts tend to arise in cross-border situations, driven by differences in legal and tax classification between jurisdictions. A structure that is treated as “transparent” from a Dutch perspective may be viewed as a separate taxable entity elsewhere (or vice versa), creating mismatches in timing and/or character of income and distributions.

A common example is the use of a STAK to certify shares in a Dutch limited liability company (BV) for family business succession planning, allowing the next generation to hold depositary receipts while control is exercised by the foundation board. In Dutch tax practice, economic entitlements (including dividend income) are often attributed at the level of the depositary receipts holders rather than the STAK itself, especially where the administration terms effectively require onward distribution. In other jurisdictions, however, a STAK may be classified as a separate entity (eg, a business entity), potentially resulting in dividend/income mismatches; this should be assessed case by case and may require tailoring the STAK’s articles and/or administration terms.

Conversely, where wealth is settled into a discretionary trust, Dutch income tax and gift/inheritance tax analysis often applies a “look-through” approach (eg, under the Dutch APV concept), generally attributing the assets to the settlor (and, on the settlor’s death, shifting attribution to heirs/beneficiaries depending on the facts). In jurisdictions that treat the trust as the primary taxpayer, this can produce double taxation or gaps. If a (future) beneficiary of a trust moves to the Netherlands, obtaining advice on the Dutch tax treatment of the trust is highly recommended.

The Netherlands is a civil law jurisdiction and does not recognise a domestic Dutch law trust concept. As a result, “trustee” services are mainly encountered in a cross-border setting (eg, acting for or alongside trustees of non-Dutch law trusts) and are typically provided through regulated trust/corporate service and wealth management offerings.

Whether a corporate or professional fiduciary requires a licence depends on the nature and scope of the activities. Where a firm provides trust and corporate services on a commercial basis to multiple, unrelated clients (eg, acting as director/administrator of entities, providing registered office services or similar fiduciary services), Dutch regulatory and AML/compliance frameworks may require licensing/registration and ongoing supervision. Where the services instead resemble investment/asset management (eg, discretionary portfolio management), separate financial regulatory permissions may be required. By contrast, a director or administrator acting within a single-family structure (with no wider service offering) may in certain cases fall outside licensing requirements, but this is highly dependent on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Dutch law does not have a separate “trustee liability” regime. In practice, however, professional fiduciaries are generally held to a higher standard of care than private individuals, based on their expertise, role and regulatory/compliance context.

The Netherlands does not have a specific private trust company (PTC) concept. A private company or foundation can be used to perform trustee-like functions, but if it provides regulated fiduciary services, it may be treated as a regulated provider, so structuring and scope should be assessed upfront.

In the Netherlands, the residence of the trustee (or the place where a trust is administered) is generally not the decisive factor for Dutch taxation. The Dutch tax analysis is highly fact-specific and typically turns on (i) the type of trust (eg, discretionary versus fixed), (ii) whether the settlor retains (directly or indirectly) control or powers, and (iii) whether the trust holds Dutch-situs assets (eg, shares in a Dutch BV or Dutch real estate).

For a discretionary trust, Dutch income tax and gift/inheritance tax analysis often applies a look-through approach (commonly discussed under the Dutch APV concept), under which the assets and income are in principle attributed to the settlor. Upon the settlor’s death, the attribution may (depending on the facts) shift (pro rata) to heirs and/or beneficiaries. To the extent the attributed person is Dutch tax resident, Dutch tax can be due as if that person held the assets directly.

Dutch taxation can also arise where the attributed person is non-resident, if the attribution relates to Dutch assets (for example, interests in a Dutch company or Dutch real estate), so cross-border “entity classification” mismatches must be reviewed case by case. For a fixed trust (fixed entitlements), the residence of the person with the fixed claim can be relevant (eg, a Dutch resident may have the entitlement included in the Dutch tax base), and Dutch real estate held through a fixed trust structure may, depending on the qualification and facts, also bring the structure within Dutch (non-resident) corporate income tax on Dutch real estate income and capital gains.

Dutch succession law and Dutch inheritance tax do not distinguish between same-sex spouses/registered partners and different-sex spouses/registered partners.

Unmarried cohabitants do not automatically have intestate succession rights. If partners wish to protect each other and, where possible, to obtain “partner” treatment for inheritance tax, this should be arranged through a will and, where relevant, a notarial cohabitation agreement.

A child’s intestate inheritance rights primarily depend on whether a legal parent–child relationship exists. This legal status is also relevant for inheritance tax purposes.

Under Dutch law, a legal parent–child relationship arises if the child is born during a marriage or registered partnership (including within 306 days after the death of a spouse or registered partner), if the child is recognised/acknowledged (which can be done during pregnancy), or through adoption. Where a legal parent–child relationship exists, the child inherits from that parent under intestacy, regardless of biological origin or the parents’ marital status.

As a rule, a biological child without a legal parent–child relationship does not inherit from the biological parent under intestacy. However, the child may seek a court determination of parentage, even after the parent’s death. If parentage is established, it has retroactive effect to the child’s birth and largely the same effects as recognition, including for maintenance and inheritance.

In surrogacy and posthumous conception scenarios, inheritance rights likewise follow legal parentage. For these scenarios, it is therefore important to ensure that parentage is legally established in time and, in practice, to consider making a will to avoid uncertainty.

As from 1 January 2026, a biological child who has not been legally recognised (and therefore has no legal parent–child relationship) is, for Dutch inheritance and gift tax purposes, treated as a child if biological parentage is proven by a genetic test; a personal relationship (“family life”) is no longer required. For cases where the biological parent died before 1 January 2026, recent policy has shown that reliance may be placed on the hardship clause to obtain “child” treatment for inheritance tax in specific cases (in particular where some form of family life with the biological parent could be demonstrated). This published approval appears to relate to inheritances; it is not yet clear whether it also applies to lifetime gifts. Commentary has further suggested that “child” treatment should also carry through in the direct line (so that the biological child’s children qualify as grandchildren), but this remains an open question, particularly where the biological link between the parent and the child can no longer be tested and only a grandparent–grandchild link can be established.

Stepchildren do not automatically inherit as a child. They can, however, be included by will (including in a testamentary “statutory division” arrangement). In that case, the same tax treatment as for children applies.

In Dutch practice, divergences in how a family relationship is legally recognised in another jurisdiction can directly affect succession planning outcomes (eg, who qualifies as an intestate heir, who has forced heirship-type claims, and who benefits from spousal/child tax treatment). Such conflicts are mainly handled through Dutch private international law rules in Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code and, where applicable, EU instruments on succession and family law recognition.

A family status validly established abroad or confirmed in a foreign judgment or act will generally be recognised in the Netherlands unless recognition is refused on limited grounds – most importantly where recognition would be manifestly contrary to Dutch public policy (public order), or where basic procedural standards were not met (depending on the relevant instrument/regime). If the foreign legal concept does not map neatly within Dutch categories, Dutch authorities may “adapt” the effect to the closest Dutch equivalent, insofar as that is consistent with the applicable recognition framework.

Based on case law, Dutch law may recognise a foreign family law legal fact or legal act even where it is not recorded in an official deed, provided it is sufficiently certain that the status exists under the foreign law. The party invoking recognition bears the duty to plead and prove the foreign status, and recognition must not be barred (eg, by public order). In practice, this means that cross-border families should anticipate evidentiary issues early (eg, collect foreign statutory declarations, registry evidence, court orders, and expert opinions on foreign law), because the “status question” often determines the “succession and tax question”.

From a Dutch perspective, cross-border succession planning is mainly impacted by interactions between Dutch (tax) law and foreign regimes. Foreign estate/inheritance taxes (including sub-national taxes) can be highly relevant where family members, assets or entities are located abroad. Dutch gift and inheritance tax is dependent on the residency status of the donor or deceased, so determining the donor’s/deceased’s (and sometimes the recipient’s) position and identifying other countries’ taxing rights (eg, based on asset situs) is a key first step.

A frequent obstacle occurs in the interaction between common law and civil law, especially where wealth is held in a trust. Dutch tax analysis often applies attribution (“look-through”) rules to trust assets (rather than taxing purely by reference to actual distributions), which can produce unexpected outcomes if a beneficiary is a Dutch resident (or becomes a Dutch resident). This is particularly relevant in inbound situations involving US, UK or Australian family trusts, where local trust taxation concepts may not align with the Dutch attribution approach.

Another recurring cross-border issue concerns Dutch nationals who have emigrated: for Dutch gift and inheritance tax purposes, they may remain deemed Dutch tax resident for a period of ten years, which can create double taxation exposure if a gift is made or death occurs during that period. As the Netherlands has a relatively limited network of estate/inheritance tax treaties, relief often depends on domestic unilateral rules and careful asset-by-asset co-ordination. Finally, differences in marital property and succession regimes can be decisive (eg, in fideicommissum structures and in cases where an unequal division on dissolution of the marital community could be treated as a taxable acquisition under Dutch deeming rules expected to take effect from 1 January 2026).