No continuation of the 30%-ruling after late employment start: strict application of the 3-month rule
A recent decision by the District Court of Noord-Holland confirms once again that the 30% ruling can only be continued if an employee signs a new employment contract within three months after the previous employment ends. In this case, an expat lost the right to continue the 30% ruling because the new employment contract was concluded too late. Although the delay was outside the employee’s control, this does not affect the strict interpretation of the rules governing the 30% ruling.
Case facts and timeline
The employee held a valid 30% ruling decision from 1 October 2021 through 30 September 2026. His employment ended on 1 November 2022. Two days later, he began a recruitment process with a new employer. Due to internal delays at that employer — including waiting for another candidate — the process was repeatedly postponed. The employment contract was finally offered on 16 February 2023, with a start date of 1 March 2023.
The employee and the new employer jointly applied for continuation of the 30% ruling, but the Dutch Tax Authorities rejected the request because more than three months had passed between the two employment contracts. As a result, the employee no longer met the conditions for continuation of the 30% ruling.
3-month rule crucial for 30%-ruling
The 30% ruling contains a specific provision for employees who change employers during the validity of their ruling. Under Article 10ed of the Dutch Wage Tax Implementation Decree, the 30% ruling may be continued if:
• the employee signs a new employment contract within three months after the previous employment ends, and
• the employee still possesses scarce, specific expertise.
The legislator directly links this three‑month period to the assessment of scarcity. If it takes longer than three months to find a new job, the employee is deemed no longer scarce. As a result, the right to continue the 30% ruling automatically expires.
Employee not at fault
The employee argued that he had no influence over the delay and that the three‑month period was exceeded due to circumstances beyond his control. The court acknowledged that the employee was not at fault, but emphasised that the 30% ruling is subject to an objective deadline. The circumstances of the case are irrelevant: once the three‑month period has passed, continuation of the 30% ruling is no longer possible.
Decision Rechtbank Noord-Holland
The court concluded that:
• the three‑month period for the 30% ruling is strict and objective;
• exceeding the period automatically means the employee is no longer considered scarce;
• the proportionality principle does not apply, as the legislator intentionally created a hard deadline;
• the Tax Authorities correctly rejected the request to continue the 30% ruling.
Safeguard 30%-ruling in these situations
• Ensure a written job offer is signed within three months, even if the start date is later.
• Consider issuing a temporary employment contract if the recruitment process is taking longer than expected, to preserve the 30% ruling.
