Crypto tax audits in Belgium: increasing information requests even before DAC8
- Aeacus Lawyers
- 6 days ago
- 4 min read
As the end of the year approaches, we observe in practice that the tax authorities are by no means entering winter mode. Both local tax inspectors and the Special Tax Inspectorate remain particularly active. An increasing number of clients are receiving requests for information from the tax authorities at short notice, or are being invited for interviews in which crypto income and crypto transactions are explicitly targeted.
DAC8 and the renewed crackdown on crypto income
In earlier publications, we have already pointed to the renewed focus and intensified scrutiny by tax authorities on crypto gains, notably in light of the European DAC8 Directive. This directive provides for extensive information exchange between Member States, based on reporting by crypto service providers. It was generally assumed that concrete tax audits would only truly gain momentum from 2027 onwards, as information relating to the 2026 income year would only be transmitted to tax administrations during the course of 2027 under DAC8.
That expectation, however, no longer appears to align with current practice. We are already seeing a clear increase in audits and requests for information concerning crypto income from previous years. The tax authorities are evidently not waiting for the formal implementation of DAC8, but are instead acting proactively on the basis of existing information, suspicions and previously filed tax returns.
Requests for information based on standard Belgian Ruling Commission questionnaires
What is particularly striking in this context is that tax inspectors in many cases simply forward the questionnaire used by the Ruling Commission (Dienst Voorafgaande Beslissingen – DVB). These questionnaires are often very extensive and request detailed information on transactions, platforms used, investment strategies and the technical aspects of crypto activities. For completeness, the DVB questionnaire can be consulted here. In practice, this regularly leads to requests for information that taxpayers can no longer accurately provide, especially where transactions date back several years or relate to platforms that are no longer operational.
This situation creates considerable uncertainty for clients, who are confronted with questions that take little account of the realities of crypto investing and the limited availability of historical data.
Major differences between inspectors and the importance of nuance
Our experience shows that the quality and approach of crypto audits can vary significantly depending on the individual tax inspector involved. Some inspectors have a solid understanding of crypto-assets, blockchain technology and their tax implications. With such inspectors, it is often possible to engage in a constructive dialogue and arrive at a fair and legally sound taxation of crypto income, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
At the same time, we also encounter inspectors who have little or no practical experience with crypto. In such cases, extreme caution is required. It is essential to formulate each response very carefully and to provide sufficient explanation and nuance. These inspectors often appear to follow, sometimes uncritically, what we consider to be incorrect or overly simplistic positions taken by the Ruling Commission, without sufficient regard for the technical complexity of crypto-assets and the resulting tax nuances.
In addition, we observe in practice that some inspectors request information over a very broad time horizon. In certain cases, taxpayers are asked to provide information for all years in which they have ever had any involvement with crypto, without a clear limitation to the tax years that are still within the statutory audit periods. Here too, caution is required. A request for information must be sufficiently delimited not only in substance but also in time. Requesting information for all relevant years without proper justification may result in an unnecessary and unlawful expansion of the scope of the audit.
Caution when responding to a request for information
We therefore strongly advise anyone who receives a request for information relating to crypto income not to complete it lightly. Responses should be concise and targeted, and no additional information should be provided beyond what is explicitly requested. One should not assume that the inspector is familiar with all technical aspects of crypto-assets or blockchain technology. Careful explanation and sufficient nuance are essential to avoid misunderstandings.
Moreover, a request for information should not amount to a so-called fishing expedition. In a tax context, this means that the administration may not indiscriminately or without concrete indications request all possible information in the hope of uncovering taxable elements. Any information request must be sufficiently specific, targeted and proportionate to the case at hand. In this respect, we observe that the DVB questionnaire, which is often copied in full by inspectors in practice, is drafted very broadly and aims to collect all conceivable information. When such a questionnaire is used without further delimitation in the context of a tax audit, it may in certain cases amount to a fishing expedition.
An ill-considered, overly extensive or insufficiently contextualised response can furthermore lead the taxpayer to unnecessarily broaden the scope of the investigation themselves, with potentially significant tax consequences.
Proper file documentation remains crucial for crypto investors
For many crypto investors, it is advisable to prepare already now. A well-structured and carefully maintained crypto file is essential today, not only in view of a potential tax audit, but also when crypto assets are later transferred to a bank account.
In practice, this means retaining and downloading transaction data as completely as possible from the platforms used, keeping bank statements relating to transfers of funds to crypto platforms, and timely reporting all custodial exchanges to the Central Point of Contact (Centraal Aanspreekpunt), preferably by 31 December 2025 at the latest.
Conclusion: tax audits on crypto income have begun
Tax audits on crypto income are clearly accelerating, and faster than many had anticipated. The increased focus of the tax authorities on crypto is now a reality. This makes caution when responding to requests for information all the more important, as the wording of the responses often sets the tone and can play a decisive role in the further course of an audit.
We therefore recommend that crypto investors carefully document their crypto activities and have their tax position reviewed in good time. We are happy to assist clients in this respect, both in responding to questions from the tax authorities and in the further follow-up of audits and any discussions with the tax administration. In the current tax climate, this is not excessive caution, but simply prudent.
If you have any further questions on crypto taxation, be sure to consult our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) or schedule an appointment..
Christophe Romero Senne Verholle
