Expat Scheme approved for a non-EU graduate

A standard application form did not reflect the actual situation

An important complication was the application process itself.

The standard application form from the Dutch Tax Authorities does not provide a practical way to fully explain this type of situation. Based on the information captured through the standard process, his Dutch registration and previous residence in the Netherlands worked against the application.

We nevertheless believed there was a strong substantive case.

That meant following the formal process.

The initial application first had to be submitted. It was subsequently rejected. Only after that decision could we formally challenge the assessment and provide the wider factual and legal argument through the objection procedure.

For Talcom, the initial rejection was therefore not the end of the case. It was the point at which we could properly present why the standard assessment did not reflect his actual circumstances.

Studying in the Netherlands versus durable residence

The nature of his previous stay became central to our objection.

The employee originally came to the Netherlands specifically to complete his Master’s degree as a non EU student. His residence during that period was directly connected to his studies.

After graduating, he obtained an orientation year permit but did not enter the Dutch labour market.

By the time ThreatFabric recruited him, he was living with his brother in France.

We therefore argued that his physical presence and administrative registration in the Netherlands should not automatically establish that the Netherlands had become his durable place of residence.

Building the objection

Talcom reconstructed his residence, study and immigration history and prepared the objection around the circumstances that the standard application could not adequately capture.

We demonstrated that:

• he had originally come to the Netherlands as a non-EU student
• his stay was connected to completing his Master’s degree
• he subsequently received an orientation year permit
• he had never worked in the Netherlands
• ThreatFabric would become his first employer in the Netherlands
• he was living with his brother in France when recruited
• his actual residence in France could be supported with evidence
• his continued Dutch registration did not accurately represent where he was living

This allowed us to move the discussion away from registration alone and towards the nature and purpose of his previous residence.

Supporting the objection with jurisprudence

Evidence of his residence was only one part of the case.

We researched relevant jurisprudence and identified an earlier case with important similarities to his situation.

We used that jurisprudence to support the argument that studying in the Netherlands does not automatically mean that the Netherlands becomes someones durable place of residence.

The objection therefore combined his individual facts with relevant case law.

Rather than simply asking the Dutch Tax Authorities to reconsider the same information, we built a legal and factual argument explaining why the initial assessment did not properly reflect his situation.

The objection was successful.

The Dutch Tax Authorities reconsidered the initial rejection and the employee was granted the Expat Scheme.

His previous years studying in the Netherlands were taken into account when calculating the remaining duration. Those years were deducted from the maximum five year period.

The key outcome, however, was that his previous period as a non-EU student did not exclude him from the scheme altogether.

ThreatFabric could employ him in his first Dutch job with the Expat Scheme applying for the remaining eligible period.

Some Expat Scheme cases cannot be properly explained through a standard application form.

In this case, submitting the application was only the first step. The initial rejection created the opportunity to formally challenge the assessment, introduce the complete residence history and support our position with relevant jurisprudence.

That required more than processing an application.

We reconstructed the facts, gathered the supporting evidence, researched comparable case law and prepared the objection required to establish why his circumstances deserved a different assessment.

The result was a successful Expat Scheme application after an initial rejection in a case where the standard application process alone could not capture the full situation.