Where a private individual realises a capital gain when selling shares, the first question that arises is whether the transactions fall within the definition of ‘normal management of private assets’. ‘Normal management’ is traditionally defined as ‘acts performed by a prudent and reasonable person for the purpose of day-to-day management, but also with a view to the profitability, realisation and reinvestment of elements of their assets’.
Criteria used in the case law to assess whether the realisation of a capital gain is part of the normal management of private assets include the amount of the capital gain, the short period within which the shares were purchased and sold, the intention to make considerable profits in the short term (speculation), the means of financing and any guarantees, the presence of economic motives, the reasons for selling, the financial strength of the buying company, etc.
If transactions do not fall within the framework of ‘normal management’ (and are therefore classed as ‘abnormal management’), realised capital gains are deemed to be ‘miscellaneous income’ and subject to a tax rate of 33% (+ supplementary local tax). In that case, the taxable capital gain is calculated as the positive difference between the price received and the price at which the shareholder (or the shareholder’s legal predecessor) has obtained these shares for valuable consideration (revalorised, where appropriate). The question of whether or not a transaction falls within the definition of ‘normal management’ is obviously a question of fact, on which only a court can provide a definitive ruling.
In the past, the tax authorities generally disputed capital gains realised by a natural person when selling shares to another company (holding company) incorporated or controlled directly or indirectly by this natural person, since this type of ‘internal capital gain’ was not deemed to fall within the definition of ‘normal management’ of private assets. However, the judgement regarding ‘normal management’ can only be made by a court with jurisdiction over the substance of the matter, and the case law is more ambiguous on this point.
The term ‘abnormal management’ and the possible requalification of a capital gain as miscellaneous income continue to exist after the introduction of the current capital gains tax on financial assets, which means that this capital gain may still be taxed as miscellaneous income.
The capital gains tax that is now introduced only applies where transactions are part of the normal management of private assets and are not carried out as part of a professional activity.