The mother-in-law is not a scatterbrain: the house is not empty

The case involved a man and a woman who lived in a holiday home from January 2014 to December 2014. They emigrated to New Zealand in December 2014. The house was put up for sale and finally sold in 2019.

During the sale of the house, the girl’s mother stays at the holiday home for a few days a week. The man believes the house was a private home in 2015.

The Den Bosch court ruled otherwise. The court considers that the man did not prove sufficiently that it was vacant. According to the Court of Appeals, a squatting situation is unbelievable. Mortgage interest paid in 2015 cannot be deducted.

Emphasis on training

According to Art. 3.111 Cover 2 Wet IP 2001 A house is considered ‘own house’ for the period of vacancy in the calendar year and the house is considered ‘own house’ for the taxpayer in the calendar year or in the previous three years. He can prove that the house is for sale.

In this case, the question is not whether the house is suitable for sale, but whether the house is actually vacant, and now the mother-in-law stayed in this house.

Proposal of the 2001 Income Tax Act from the Explanatory Report, (Parliamentary Documents II 1998/1999, 26 727, No. 3, p. 146) Art. 3.111 Cover 2 Wet IP 2001 Turns out:

“The house where only some furniture exists or the so-called squat guard lives is considered vacant.“

The fact that the mother-in-law acted as a squat guard in this case is not credible. The decisive factor here is that the stay of the mother-in-law was based on a verbal agreement between her and the man, thereby allowing the mother-in-law to use the house until it was sold. Had there really been a situation of occupiers, it would have been obvious that the mutual obligations arising from this would have been put in writing.

Also read the theme Igenwonning regulation.