Prudent Investor vs. Speculation and Abnormal Management in Belgium (2025–2026)

Tot and including 2025, Belgian tax law was based on the principle that realised capital gains on financial assets were, in principle, not taxable where they resulted from the normal management of private wealth. This classic distinction, often summarised under the concept of the “prudent investor” (“goede huisvader”), also applies to cryptoassets. Taxpayers who manage their wealth in a cautious and reasonable manner generally did not pay tax on realised capital gains, as long as their transactions remained within the normal framework of private asset management.

By contrast, capital gains arising from transactions that fall outside the normal management of private wealth may be qualified as miscellaneous income. Such gains are currently taxable at a separate rate of 33%, increased by municipal surcharges. In practice, this is often referred to as “speculation”, although the central legal concept is that of abnormal management of private wealth.

The introduction of a general capital gains tax from 2026 significantly alters this landscape, while at the same time confirming that the distinction between normal management on the one hand and speculation or abnormal management on the other will continue to play a central role in the future.

The concept of the “prudent investor” (“goede huisvader”) in Belgian tax law

The qualification as a prudent investor implies that the taxpayer acts as a normal, cautious and reasonable investor, without taking excessive risks and without using professional techniques or structures. The management must clearly remain within the private sphere and must not display characteristics of a professional activity.

Under Belgian tax law, normal management includes those acts that a prudent investor would undertake in order to preserve private wealth or allow it to grow in a sensible manner. In this respect, reference may be made to a judgment of the Ghent Court of Appeal (Ghent Court of Appeal – 5th Chamber – Case no. 2018/AR/1268), which held that:

“Normal management of private wealth can be defined as management carried out by a normal, cautious and reasonable person, the so-called pater familias. It aims to preserve or increase private wealth without excessive risks or the use of professional means or techniques. Whether or not a transaction meets the criterion of normal management must be assessed in light of the entirety of the facts. The Court may take into account a broader set of transactions within which the disputed act took place. Proof of a prior step-by-step plan or a predetermined construction is not necessarily required.”

There are three key conditions for normal management. First, transactions must correspond to what is considered normal within private wealth management by a cautious and reasonable person. Secondly, the wealth must remain strictly private and separate from any professional activity. Gains arising from the professional use of cryptoassets, for example by companies, may be taxed as professional income. Finally, all relevant facts must always be taken into account in order to assess whether the management qualifies as normal, meaning that each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Typical features of normal management in crypto

In the context of crypto, this generally means that an investor invests with their own funds, adopts a long-term strategy, and exposes only a limited part of their total movable wealth to volatile assets. The type of asset also plays a role. Investments in established cryptoassets within a buy-and-hold approach are more likely to be regarded as normal management than aggressive positions in highly speculative tokens. Up to 31 December 2025, capital gains realised within this framework remain in principle exempt from taxation.

It is possible that speculation and normal management overlap. Modern wealth management often requires more knowledge and advice, meaning that a certain degree of risk and even speculative insight may be acceptable. In crypto, this may imply that limited transaction activity or some exposure to market movements does not necessarily amount to speculation, provided that such activity remains consistent with a coherent private wealth strategy.

An important caveat is that exceptional circumstances – such as major financial risks, significant borrowing, or trading patterns resembling a profit-driven activity – may bring the management outside the boundaries of normal private management.

On 9 May 2000, Mr Van Quickenborne raised a parliamentary question regarding the taxation of speculative income and the interpretation of “abnormal speculative intentions”. The Minister of Finance stated that speculation is characterised by risky transactions with the possibility of high profit or loss. Factors such as short holding periods, financing through borrowed funds, and a disproportion between the investment and total private wealth may indicate speculation. Repeated speculative acts may be treated as professional income. Each case, however, requires an individual assessment.

The practice of the Belgian Ruling Commission (DVB)

Although the distinction between normal management and abnormal management is only limitedly defined in the law itself, the practice of the Belgian Ruling Commission (Dienst Voorafgaande Beslissingen – DVB) plays a particularly important role in the assessment of crypto capital gains. In several ruling files, the DVB has confirmed that crypto investments may in principle fall within the regime of normal management, but always based on a concrete analysis of the facts and circumstances.

The DVB questionnaire in practice

In practice, the DVB applies a recognisable methodology. Taxpayers requesting a ruling are almost systematically confronted with an extensive questionnaire addressing, among other things, the origin of the invested funds, the size of the portfolio relative to total private wealth, the investment strategy, the frequency of transactions, the use of external financing, and the possible use of professional or automated tools.

The DVB generally refuses to issue rulings for normal management where more than 25% of the taxpayer’s movable wealth is invested in cryptoassets. This threshold appears arbitrary and should not play a decisive role in a tax audit. The archetype of a prudent investor is therefore a person who invests only a limited part of their wealth, without debt financing, in cryptoassets over a longer period.

This DVB practice is particularly relevant because it shows that the tax qualification of crypto investments was already highly file-driven before 2026. The introduction of the new capital gains tax does not fundamentally change this. Even under the future regime, the assessment of whether transactions are speculative or abnormal will depend on the same parameters, albeit with significantly greater fiscal and practical consequences.

Abnormal management of private wealth and speculation: the core of the 33% regime

In practice, the terms “speculation” and “abnormal management of private wealth” are often used interchangeably. Belgian tax law taxes capital gains as miscellaneous income when they arise from transactions falling outside the normal management of private wealth.

Speculation as a factual manifestation of abnormal management

Abnormal management is therefore the legal category giving rise to taxation at 33%, increased by municipal surcharges. Speculation is a common factual manifestation, but not the only one. Transactions that do not feel purely “speculative” may still qualify as abnormal management where they objectively display an excessive or non-private character.

Criteria that give rise to discussion in practice

In crypto, the tax assessment does not depend solely on whether someone “wanted to make a quick profit”, but more broadly on whether the overall conduct still fits within the behaviour of a normal private investor. Abnormal management may be inferred from high transaction frequency, short holding periods, leverage or external financing, the use of automated trading software, or a disproportionate exposure of private wealth to cryptoassets.

The distinction between normal management on the one hand and speculation or abnormal management on the other remains one of the main sources of tax uncertainty for crypto investors. The qualification is always based on all facts and circumstances combined, meaning that a case-by-case assessment remains unavoidable.

Evolution towards 2026: from exemption to a general capital gains tax

With a view to the introduction of a general capital gains tax from 1 January 2026, it was initially considered to abolish the distinction between normal and abnormal management entirely. The original draft texts explicitly stated that the new 10% levy would apply as a lex specialis, meaning that all capital gains on financial assets within scope would fall under the uniform rate, regardless of their speculative character, except where realised professionally.

From a uniform levy to the preservation of the distinction

This simple harmonisation ultimately did not prevail. Under political pressure, it was decided to maintain the classic distinction. According to the final agreement, capital gains resulting from speculation or abnormal management remain subject to the 33% regime, whereas non-abnormal capital gains will fall under the new 10% levy.

The reform therefore does not abolish the existing framework, but rather introduces an additional regime on top of the existing qualification rules.

More tax scrutiny on crypto from 2026?

This reform inevitably raises the question of whether the tax administration is, in a sense, being “put next to the milk”. From 2026 onwards, not only will a new tax regime apply, but reporting obligations and data flows relating to cryptoassets will also increase significantly. Combined with international information exchange, DAC8 reporting and the use of data mining, the tax authorities will increasingly be able to identify which taxpayers hold cryptoassets, which platforms are used, and whether realised income has been correctly reported.

It is therefore likely that this will lead in practice to additional information requests and an increase in tax audits, even for investors who believe they are acting within the normal management of private wealth.

Against this background, it is relevant that the Minister of Finance, Jan Jambon, emphasised in the Parliamentary Finance Committee that abnormal management should remain exceptional and that the new regime is not intended to systematically subject crypto investors to the 33% rate.

Parliamentary clarification: abnormal management remains exceptional

In the Parliamentary Finance Committee, Minister Jan Jambon responded to concerns among crypto investors that the introduction of the capital gains tax from 2026 would lead to a mass requalification of crypto transactions as abnormal management. De Tijd reported on 27 January 2026 that the Minister expects abnormal management to arise only in exceptional cases.

Burden of proof on the tax authorities, according to the Minister

The Minister stressed that even under the new regime, it remains for the tax administration to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that a realised capital gain stems from transactions outside the normal management of private wealth. This constitutes a significant burden of proof resting on the shoulders of the tax authorities.

According to Jambon, abnormal management can only be established where several criteria are simultaneously met, such as the percentage of movable wealth invested in crypto, the use of borrowed funds, automated software, and the number of transactions carried out.

While this parliamentary clarification may sound reassuring, it does not in itself provide full legal certainty. The qualification remains dependent on the concrete circumstances of each file, and further administrative guidance will be necessary. Ultimately, it remains to be seen how the tax administration will apply these criteria in practice during audits and disputes.

Practical consequences and preparation for crypto investors

The reform from 2026 will in practice lead to increased reporting obligations, more administrative scrutiny, and a higher likelihood of tax audits and information requests. Crypto investors should therefore ensure that their transactions are systematically documented and that the origin of their funds can be demonstrated in a coherent and transparent manner.

The snapshot date of 31 December 2025

An essential element of the reform is the so-called snapshot date of 31 December 2025. For cryptoassets acquired before 1 January 2026, the value on that date will in principle serve as the fiscal acquisition value. Historical gains built up until the end of 2025 therefore remain outside the scope of the new capital gains tax, while only gains realised thereafter may become taxable.

In practice, it will therefore be crucial to be able to demonstrate which cryptoassets were held on 31 December 2025 and what value can reasonably be attributed to them at that time.

Tax reporting and compliance from 2026

From 2026 onwards, the introduction of the capital gains tax will inevitably lead to additional reporting obligations and increased administrative monitoring of cryptoassets. Whereas capital gains realised within normal private wealth management were in principle not taxable up to 2025, realised gains from 2026 onwards will generally need to be processed under the new regime.

In addition, crypto-related income that may already qualify today as investment income, miscellaneous income or professional income remains subject to the existing reporting and taxation rules. Combined with DAC8 reporting, the Belgian Central Contact Point and data mining, the tax authorities will also have significantly more information available, making proper documentation and transparency increasingly essential.

Conclusion

The Belgian tax framework for crypto remains largely based on the distinction between normal management and speculation or abnormal management. Cautious long-term investment behaviour will in principle fall under the new 10% regime, while gains resulting from abnormal management remain taxable at 33%. A well-documented file and a transparent approach will therefore become essential in the new fiscal era for cryptoassets.

Appointment

Christophe Romero Senne Verholle

christophe.romero@aeacus.be senne.verholle@aeacus.be