On 6 October 2026 the Eerste Kamer adopted, as a hamerstuk (an item passed without debate), bill 36.920, the Wet implementatie Richtlijn btw in het digitale tijdperk – enkele btw-registratie. The Tweede Kamer had done the same on 17 September 2026. The law is due to enter into force on 1 January 2027, according to the Eerste Kamer's bill page. It implements the single VAT registration part of the EU's VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package, Directive (EU) 2025/516.
This matters for tech policy because the Netherlands is taxing digital platforms through the VAT system. It has not adopted a domestic digital services tax (DST). That is the right choice. The open question is whether the second, more ambitious step is built as carefully.
What the bill does, and what it does not
The adopted bill is the administrative half of ViDA. According to TaxLive's report, it expands the existing one-stop-shop (OSS) schemes and adds some clarifications. It also phases out the current call-off stock scheme (voorraad op afroep) and replaces it with a new transfer scheme folded into the OSS. For a seller serving customers across the EU, the aim is fewer VAT registrations and one place to file and pay.
The bill does not create a new platform liability. That is a separate bill, still to come.
The platform rule is the harder part
The Netherlands has consulted on the platform-economy component of ViDA. BDO's summary of the consultation, published on 5 November 2025, describes the design. A platform that facilitates short-term accommodation or road passenger transport would be treated as the supplier for VAT purposes. It would collect and pay the VAT unless the underlying provider registers for VAT and tells the platform. The Dutch plan is to apply the rule from 1 July 2028, the earliest date the directive allows. The Spanish tax agency's summary of Directive 2025/516 confirms that 1 July 2028 is the date the rules can start, and that Member States may delay until 2030.
The case for the Dutch approach
The strongest argument for the rule is a fair one. A licensed hotel or taxi company charges VAT and a casual host or driver often does not. Platforms see every transaction, so they are the cheapest place to collect the tax. Making the platform liable closes a real gap and treats comparable services alike. It also raises revenue without a new tax category. Dutch policymakers can fairly say they are enforcing the existing tax and not inventing a new one.
I agree with that reasoning, and it is also why VAT beats a DST. A DST is levied on the revenue of large platforms. It is hard to pass through cleanly, and it invites retaliation. The EU's single VAT system sits on internationally accepted consumption-tax principles. A VAT approach applies the same rule to a Dutch platform and a foreign one, and it stays in step with a Union framework rather than opening a trade dispute. Compliance is still a burden, but the tax is predictable.
Where proportionality is at risk
Being a better route than a DST does not make every design choice a good one. Three features of the consultation deserve scrutiny.
- Going 18 months early. The platform rules are mandatory EU-wide only later. An early start gives the Netherlands a head start in building the systems. It also means Dutch-based platforms and hosts face the rule before competitors in most other Member States. Fragmented timing is the kind of cost ViDA was meant to remove.
- The 30-night line. According to BDO, the consultation would limit the rental VAT exemption to an uninterrupted stay by the same person of at most 30 nights. BDO argues that this distinction may conflict with the principle of VAT neutrality. Where tax treatment depends on the length of a stay, platforms and hosts will adjust their products to it, which distorts the market.
- The small-enterprise carve-out. The Netherlands intends not to apply the deemed-supplier rule to road passenger transport where the driver uses the small enterprise scheme. Small operators avoid the compliance burden, which is sensible. But it also leaves a boundary where the treatment of two similar drivers could differ.
None of these is fatal. They are design questions, and the consultation stage is the right time to settle them.
What good implementation looks like
First, the Dutch government should align with the other Member States as far as it can. If it starts early, it should publish guidance and technical specifications well before 1 July 2028, so platforms are not building systems against an unsettled rule.
Second, the platform rule should be as simple as the single-registration regime it follows. The OSS works because it lets a business deal with one tax authority in one place. A platform that must determine every host's VAT status, local ID and self-charging declaration faces more complexity than that. The safe-harbour route, where a provider supplies a VAT ID and declares it will charge the tax itself, should be easy to use and quick to verify.
Third, any revenue gain should not be treated as proof of success. The goal is to collect the tax already owed, not to tax the platform sector more heavily. Ministers should say how much additional revenue they expect and publish the actual yield, so it can be judged against the compliance cost to small hosts and drivers.
The Dutch path is the more defensible of the two ways to tax digital platforms. It relies on a tax system that already exists and on rules agreed at EU level. The Eerste Kamer's quiet vote on 6 October shows how uncontroversial that first step was. The platform bill that follows will be more contested, and it should be judged on whether it keeps the neutrality that makes VAT preferable to a DST.