Most intellectual professions (including lawyers) produce texts almost daily that reflect their knowledge, expertise, and professional originality.
Think, for example, of (legal) advices, opinions, structuring, optimizations, or reasoning and arguments (legal or otherwise).
Can such productive intellectual activity also lead to remuneration under the transfer of copyright, and if so, how? In this blog, we will take a closer look at this question.
Tax treatment of income from the transfer of copyright
Income derived from the transfer of copyright related to a literary or artistic work intended for reproduction or public communication is considered movable income under the Belgian Income Tax Code of 1992 (CIR). As such, it benefits from a favourable tax rate of 15%.
This movable income is only reclassified as professional income (and taxed at progressive rates) if the productive assets of this income are attributed to the taxpayer's professional activity.
According to administrative commentary, an asset attributed to the exercise of professional activity is one used in the course of that activity. For intangible movable assets, this attribution exists as soon as a link is established between the title originating the intellectual rights and the professional activity. This applies when the work is created as part of or in extension of the taxpayer's professional activity.
When these patrimonial assets are attributed to the taxpayer's professional activity, reclassification of movable income as professional income occurs only if and to the extent that:
- The remuneration for the transfer of copyright exceeds 30% of the total income.
- The copyright income exceeds €73,070 (indexed amount for the 2025 tax year).
For example, take a lawyer who, alongside his litigation and advisory practice, writes a legal textbook. This work is linked to his professional activity because it directly stems from his expertise as a lawyer.
Suppose his legal practice generates an annual profit of €60,000 in 2024, and he receives €30,000 as an author. In this case, the copyright income exceeds the 30% ceiling of total income (€27,000). Therefore, €3,000 of the copyright income will be reclassified as professional income, while the remaining €27,000 will continue to be treated as movable income.
Tax base
Only "net" income is taxable. The net movable income from the transfer of copyright is understood as the "gross amount minus expenses incurred to acquire or preserve this income."
The law thus allows the deduction of expenses related to the transfer of copyright. In the absence of supporting documents, taxpayers may apply a flat-rate expense deduction. This deduction is calculated as follows:
- 50% on the first income bracket of €19,480 (indexed amount for the 2025 tax year).
- 25% on the income bracket from €19,480 to €38,970 (indexed amount for the 2025 tax year).
The deductible expenses for movable income under the law are those incurred by the author to obtain such income, including consultancy fees and commissions to copyright management companies. However, this does not include expenses incurred to create the work itself.
Thus, applying the statutory flat rate does not seem incompatible with deducting actual professional expenses when the work is created as part of the taxpayer's professional activity.
The issue of expense deduction
The tax administration, in its usual strictness, considers that taxpayers cannot combine the deduction of actual expenses for professional income with the flat-rate expense deduction for copyright income, as this would lead to double deduction of the same expenses, which it argues is contrary to Article 23 of the CIR.
As a result, the tax authority sometimes rejects professional expenses up to the amount of flat-rate deductions claimed, arguing that such deductions create an unacceptable overlap.
Legality of taxation and case law
This interpretation by the tax administration contradicts the principle of tax legality and the "sources theory" of the Belgian Court of Cassation, which states:
"Income is only taxable when and insofar as it is derived by the taxpayer from a source identified in the law, namely real estate, movable assets, capital, or professional activity."
This theory implies that each category established by law is subject to its own rules. Therefore, each income category must be treated independently.
The Walloon Brabant Court of First Instance ruled on the possibility of combining these deductions. It held that the flat-rate expense deduction applicable to copyright could coexist without contradiction with the deduction of actual professional expenses when the taxpayer also engages in a professional activity (Civ. Walloon Brabant, January 17, 2022, available on www.monkey.be).
Similarly, on June 13, 2024, the French-speaking Court of First Instance of Brussels rejected the tax administration's position, emphasizing the need to distinguish between professional activity generating profits and the transfer of copyright. As it ruled:
"Reasoning otherwise would deprive the flat-rate expense regime applicable to copyright of any practical effect. In practice, for most professions concerned (filmmakers, photographers, actors, writers...), copyright may be exercised as part of professional activity without being conflated with it" (Civ. Brussels, June 13, 2024, R.G. no. 19/5624/A).
Conclusion
Each income category is subject to its own rules. It is therefore necessary to distinguish flat-rate expenses related to copyright from actual professional expenses related to professional income. These expenses can be deducted independently depending on the income category to which they pertain.
They cannot be partially rejected on the grounds that they result in double deduction, under penalty of violating the constitutional principle of tax legality. Even if such income originates from the same work, the tax administration must respect the legal tax treatment reserved for income from the transfer of copyright.
In other words, taxpayers can not only apply the flat-rate expense deduction to their movable income but also deduct the actual professional expenses related to creating their work.
Feel free to contact Vanbelle Law Boutique if you wish to evaluate your specific situation in light of the qualification of certain performances under copyright and their implications on your recurrent tax situation.
Walid Jaafari
junior associate
