30% ruling lapses 3 months after employment ends

V-N Vandaag 2012/26: 30% ruling lapses three months after the end of employment for foreign worker.
Haarlem District Court ruled that X may no longer apply the 30% rule after commencing her new job more than three months after her former employment ended.
X, born in South Africa, is an accountant who has dual British and South African citizenship. A Dutch company had recruited X from abroad and she commenced working for this company from January 19, 2009. X is eligible for the 30%-ruling. On September 5, 2009 X voluntarily ended her employment with the company to study. In the period from March 22 to July 1, 2010 X worked a total of 120 hours as a student research assistant by another Dutch company. In dispute is whether X may resume the 30%-ruling for this new job. Haarlem District Court ruled that X may no longer apply the 30% rule after commencing her new job more than three months after her former employment ended. The Court concluded that the period of three months between contracts with different withholding agents is a fatal deadline on the basis of the text of Art. 9c uitvoeringsbesluit loonbelasting, assuming that by changing employment the requirement for specific expertise is no longer fulfilled. The court found support for this conclusion in the conclusion to the notes of Art. 9c and by the ruling of the Supreme Court on April 28, 2006, No. 40 217, V-N 2006/23.19. X proposed that the lawmakers did not intend for the three month term to apply when employment is terminated voluntarily for a career break, sabbatical leave, or study. X supported this assertion with the Minister of Finance’s response to a question from the VVD regarding the publication of a draft of the uitvoeringsbesluit (V-N BP21 2001/22.5). The court rejected this argument of X. The Court found the period of three months to be unenforceable if the position of X was maintained. If the three month period is exceeded the Tax Office would not be able to verify if an “incoming employee” is unable to find new employment (and thus be considered to have lost their condition of scarce expertise), or whether they have consciously opted for a career break. The appeal of X is unfounded.