Entrepreneur Damage in the Toeslagenaffaire: A Systematic Exclusion

Executive Summary

From the beginning of the compensation process in March 2020, all recovery schemes for the toeslagenaffaire were designed exclusively for affected parents and families. No separate category for entrepreneur damage was ever established. The Wet hersteloperatie toeslagen (Wht) provides a flat 25% material damage rate, a capped immaterial damage of €500 per half-year and a €30,000 lump sum per parent, none of which account for business losses, goodwill destruction or loss of client portfolios.

What Happened

The Commissie-Donner recommended compensation for parents who were “institutionally prejudiced”, a criterion rooted in the citizen-government relationship, not in commercial harm. Gastouderbureaus (childcare agencies), the only businesses explicitly mentioned, were classified as “facilitators” rather than victims. The Awir (Algemene wet inkomensafhankelijke regelingen) lacked a hardship clause after a weakened amendment by Pieter Omtzigt, leaving no legal instrument to protect entrepreneurs from disproportionate consequences.

The CWS (Commissie Werkelijke Schade) operated with building blocks for parents, partners and children, but no building block for business damage. Entrepreneurs had to prove causal connection between the affair and their business failure individually, with high burden of proof and no independent economic expertise available. The CWS was closed to new applications in early 2026, with ~7,000 cases still in the queue.

Evidence

Coverage rates for entrepreneur-specific damage are severe. Business loss and goodwill are compensated at 0-4%, self-employed income loss at approximately 37% (calculated on minimum wage rather than actual income), pension damage and loss of business credit at 0%. The Rechtbank Noord-Holland ruled on 19 June 2025 that €30,000 was sufficient compensation for a claim of €654,159, a 4.6% ratio. Nine hundred fifty foreign victims structurally receive 30-40% less compensation.

Analysis

The problem is a gap. The government treats compensation as “reversing incorrect benefits decisions” (administrative law), while entrepreneurs experience it as “full compensation for all damage suffered” (civil law). The ABRvS confirmed in July 2025 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2864) that the €500/half-year immaterial damage forfait is intentional and not subject to judicial review, closing the door to higher forfait compensation via administrative courts. A civil procedure against the State remains the only route for full damage recovery, but the Raad voor Rechtsbijstand refused funded legal aid to victims.

Frequently asked questions

What percentage of business damage is compensated in the childcare benefits scandal?

Only 0 to 4 percent of business loss and goodwill destruction is compensated. Income loss for the self-employed is compensated at roughly 37 percent, calculated on the minimum wage rather than actual income. Pension damage and loss of business credit remain fully uncompensated at 0 percent coverage.

What does the Wet hersteloperatie toeslagen offer entrepreneurs?

The Wht provides a flat 25 percent rate for material damage, a capped immaterial damage of €500 per half-year and a lump sum of €30,000 per parent. None of these components account for business losses, goodwill destruction or loss of client portfolios. The ABRvS confirmed in July 2025 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2864) that the €500 per half-year forfait is intentional and not subject to judicial review.

Why is there no hardship clause in the Awir?

After a weakened amendment by Pieter Omtzigt, the Awir lacks a hardship clause, leaving no legal instrument to protect entrepreneurs from disproportionate consequences. The Commissie-Donner recommended compensation for parents who were institutionally prejudiced, a criterion rooted in the citizen-government relationship. Gastouderbureaus were classified by the government as facilitators rather than victims.

How many cases were still in the queue when the CWS closed?

Around 7,000 cases were still in the queue when the Commissie Werkelijke Schade closed to new applications in early 2026. Entrepreneurs had to prove a causal connection between the affair and their business failure individually, with a high burden of proof and no independent economic expertise available. A civil procedure against the State remains the only route to full compensation, but the Raad voor Rechtsbijstand refused funded legal aid.

Read also

• Why justice is kept out — why the cabinet keeps the prosecution service out
• Who knew what about the data vault — who knew what about the data vault, and who is still there
• The full data vault timeline — the full timeline, 2019-2026
• 64 million files out of sight — the discovery and the nine-month delay

Sources

• Wikipedia NL/EN: Toeslagenaffaire / Dutch childcare benefits scandal
• Herstel Toeslagen (herstel.toeslagen.nl)
• Commissie Werkelijke Schade (werkelijkeschade.nl)
• ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:8961 (Rechtbank Noord-Holland)
• ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2864 (ABRvS)
• RTL Nieuws, Eindhovens Dagblad
• RAPPORT-07, RAPPORT-13, RAPPORT-14, RAPPORT-17 (knowledge base)