January 2026: the Court of Cassation overturned the Ghent Court of Appeal decisions that found the municipal taxes on second homes in Knokke and Koksijde to be discriminatory. But the case is not over: it has been referred back to the Antwerp Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, the Council of State annulled a comparable provincial tax in May 2025. For property owners on the coast, the situation remains uncertain — and the documents to keep are crucial.
Where does the legal saga on second home taxes at the coast stand?
The situation is complex and evolving. In January 2026, the Court of Cassation overturned the Ghent Court of Appeal rulings that declared the municipal taxes on second homes in Knokke and Koksijde discriminatory. The case has been referred back to the Antwerp Court of Appeal, which must rule again. In parallel, the Council of State annulled a similar provincial tax in Flanders in May 2025. The saga is not over, and neither municipalities nor property owners yet know which way it will go.
Background: why these taxes are being challenged
The taxes in question
Flemish coastal municipalities, above all Knokke-Heist and Koksijde, levy specific annual taxes on second homes — properties not occupied as the owner's primary residence. These taxes can reach more than EUR 1,000 per year.
The municipalities' original arguments for justifying these taxes are twofold:
- Compensating for lost fiscal revenue: a second-home owner is not registered in the municipality, does not pay local personal income tax surcharges, but uses the infrastructure (roads, security, public spaces)
- Managing property occupation: second homes contribute to the scarcity and high cost of housing available for permanent residents
The property owners' argument against these taxes
Property owners and consumer organisations (including Test-Achats) challenged these taxes on a central legal argument: they treat taxpayers differently depending on their primary place of residence, which would constitute discrimination contrary to the principle of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed by the Belgian Constitution.
The argument: two identical properties of the same value, located in the same municipality, are taxed differently depending on whether their owner lives in the municipality or not. This distinction, based on place of residence, would be discriminatory.
The Court of Cassation ruling: a partial reversal
What the Ghent Court of Appeal had decided
The Ghent Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of property owners, finding these taxes discriminatory. It held that the distinction based on the property owner's place of residence was not objectively justified.
The Court of Cassation's reasoning
The Court of Cassation did not rule on the merits — it overturned the Ghent decisions on legal grounds. Its central reasoning: municipalities can legitimately present these taxes as a flat-rate levy on properties regarded as luxury or comfort assets, regardless of the owner's income.
Under this reading, the tax does not discriminate between property owners based on their place of residence: it taxes a category of property (second homes) regarded as a "luxury comfort" asset. The relevant criterion would be the nature of the property, not the owner's domicile.
This reasoning opens a path for municipalities to maintain their taxes, provided they justify them correctly as taxes on a category of property, and not as taxes on the behaviour of their owners.
Why the case is not over
The Court of Cassation did not validate the taxes — it annulled the Ghent reasoning and referred the case to the Antwerp Court of Appeal. This court must re-examine the Knokke and Koksijde taxes in light of the framework set by the Court of Cassation. It could uphold them, partially invalidate them, or invalidate them on other grounds.
The contradictory precedent from the Council of State
While the civil court saga continues, the Council of State issued in May 2025 three rulings annulling the provincial tax on second homes in West Flanders for fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Why this precedent matters
The Council of State found this provincial tax discriminatory, which led to refunds for property owners for the years 2022–2024.
The distinction between the provincial tax (annulled by the Council of State) and the municipal taxes (whose fate remains uncertain after the Court of Cassation) is important. These are two different levels of government, with different legal bases for establishing such taxes.
The situation as at January 2026
| Tax | Court | Decision | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provincial tax WF (2022–2024) | Council of State, May 2025 | Annulled | Refunds ongoing |
| Knokke municipal tax | Antwerp Court of Appeal (referral) | Pending | Uncertainty |
| Koksijde municipal tax | Antwerp Court of Appeal (referral) | Pending | Uncertainty |
| Other coastal municipalities | Various proceedings | Variable | Monitor |
What second home owners should do
Keep all tax notices and proof of payment
This is the most important recommendation. If the Antwerp Court of Appeal annuls the Knokke and Koksijde municipal taxes, refunds could be awarded for recent fiscal years. Property owners who have not kept their payment notices will have difficulty asserting their rights.
Documents to keep:
- All tax notices since at least 2020
- Proof of payment (bank statements, receipts)
- Any challenge correspondence sent to the municipalities
- Any court decisions received if you have already challenged a tax
Do not pay "under reservation" without challenging formally
If you wish to challenge a tax, the legal technique is to pay the tax "under all reservations" and to file a formal objection with the municipality within the prescribed deadlines. Payment without reservation may be interpreted as acceptance.
Before challenging, consult a lawyer specialising in tax or administrative law: the procedures are formalised and deadlines are strict.
Monitor the Antwerp Court of Appeal proceedings
The Antwerp Court of Appeal's decision, when it comes, will clarify the situation for municipal taxes. Other coastal municipalities (De Panne, Middelkerke, De Haan, Blankenberge, Ostend) apply similar taxes: the Antwerp decision on Knokke and Koksijde will set a precedent for the entire coast.
For managers of second homes
If you manage coastal properties for non-resident owners:
- Inform your clients of the legal situation and the ongoing uncertainty
- Keep tax documents in each property's file
- Monitor the Antwerp proceedings to be able to act quickly if refunds become possible
With Seido, the tax documents for each property are centralised and permanently accessible — tax notices, proof of payment, charge history. In the event of a favourable development in second home tax case law, your clients will immediately have the documents needed to assert their rights. Discover Seido →
This article is part of Property Essentials #2 — February 2026. Also read: Brussels property tax: the explosion of municipal surcharges — Winter moratorium: the Constitutional Court validates the measure.
Sources and references
- Court of Cassation reshuffles the cards for municipal taxes in Knokke and Koksijde, La Libre Belgique, 20/01/2026
- Council of State, 27 May 2025 (3 rulings) — annulment of the West Flanders provincial tax for 2022–2024: VRT NWS, 30/05/2025
- Annulment of the provincial tax on second homes in West Flanders, Moore, 2025
- Challenging the second home tax, Test-Achats