8 January 2026
The WOZ value of a property is its estimated market value. In other words, it is the price that would be paid by the highest bidder if the property were sold in the best possible way. Each year, the municipality determines this value and assigns it to a property on the basis of sale prices of comparable properties in the area.
It is possible that the municipality sets the value too high and that the owner disagrees. In that case, the court can review the value. The court will consider whether the reference properties are sufficiently comparable to the owner’s property. And whether the municipality has properly taken account of differences between the reference properties and the property in question.
In a judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:1549), the homeowner argued that the municipality had attributed an excessively high WOZ value to her property. She claimed that the municipality had used reference properties that were not comparable to her property. The municipality had relied on properties that were vacant and had been sold without tenants. Whereas the owner’s property was rented out.
In addition, there was a dispute between the owner and the tenant about the rent. The property had initially been let to the tenant at a “friends’ rate”. The owner later wanted to increase the rent, but the tenant refused. In separate proceedings, the court ultimately ruled that no rent increase was permitted.
At first instance, the court held that the WOZ Act does not take account of the fact that a property is rented to a third party. The WOZ value is determined with two statutory valuation fictions in mind: the transfer fiction and the acquisition fiction. The value must be assessed at the moment when full and unencumbered ownership could be transferred, and the acquirer could immediately and fully use the property in the condition it is in. In other words, the property must be valued as if it were not rented out.
The owner then argued that these valuation fictions were contrary to the proportionality principle, and that they should therefore not be applied. The court disagreed. The cause of the owner’s problem lay in the tenancy arrangements she had personally made with the tenant. She had herself agreed a non-market rent as a friendly gesture and was now experiencing the negative consequences. These were not circumstances the municipality had to take into account when determining the WOZ value.
On appeal, the court of appeal confirmed the judgment and the assessment framework used by the district court. The valuation fictions cannot be disapplied on the basis of an alleged conflict with the proportionality principle. The court of appeal further emphasised that these fictions are the result of a deliberate legislative choice to achieve a uniform method for valuing real estate for tax purposes.
The issue therefore does not lie in applying the valuation fictions, but in the rental terms the owner herself agreed with the tenant. The court concluded that there was no reason to reduce the WOZ value. The owner’s appeal failed.
In this judgment, the court of appeal once again underlined that the WOZ value is assessed as if the property were not rented out. Any possible infringement of the proportionality principle does not alter this. The legislator has consciously opted for a uniform valuation of real estate to ensure simplicity and efficiency.
Do you have questions about the WOZ value of your property and would you like advice? Please feel free to contact us, our real estate law specialists are ready to assist you.
