HRIF.EU walks the talk: we do not participate in the ANBI system — a “system lever” with fundamental-rights side effects

We often get the question: “When will you become an ANBI?”

Our answer is as simple as it is uncomfortable: we would like to. The idea behind ANBI— giving fiscal space to organisations with ideals and objectives that seek to benefit the greater good is fine. But becoming such a fiscally designated ANBI (‘Algemeen Nut Beogende Instellingen’) comes with some human rights downsides. That’s why we won’t become a so-called ANBI.

Because HRIF.EU works towards a world in which taxation and supervision are not used as a system design that normalises organisations: no unnecessary data pooling, no proxy labels that steer access to essential infrastructure, and no fiscal instruments that, in practice, condition freedom of association.

That is why HRIF.EU will not become an ANBI as long as the current ANBI regime proves, in practice, to be a system lever with fundamental-rights side effects. We explain this in our (lengthy) research document: “ANBI: not a tax haven, but a Fata Morgana (in Dutch)!”

Three main reasons why we do not want to be an ANBI

1) Gift tax as a “data tunnel” into a data pool of special-category personal data

Gift-tax procedures can unintentionally push organisations into a gatekeeper role towards donors. When reporting a large donation, we are expected to file the return on behalf of the donor and to request an authorisation from the donor. The donor’s data, however, is not actually relevant—and fortunately the Dutch tax authorities granted an exception for us.

But our exception should become the norm. Foundations should not be required to request individual donor data/authorisations from donors. Foundations are not data collectors for the tax authorities—certainly not because a donation to a foundation or charity can quickly count as processing special-category personal data under Article 9 GDPR. In principle, we oppose forwarding, collecting, and managing such data pools.

2) The “tax gun”: retroactive withdrawal of ANBI status as a continuity risk

A legally underexposed fact is that ANBI status can be withdrawn retroactively. This is not semantics: it means fiscal consequences (including the treatment of income received in previous years) can be reversed after the fact. For foundations that typically spend donations on their mission (and do not maintain large buffers), this can create a sudden, existential continuity risk.

Because once a tax inspector decides you did not comply with specific ANBI rules (which can change every year through an Order in Council / AMvB), you could suddenly be required—retroactively—to pay 20–40% gift tax on donations that will already have been spent.

For the record: previously this was considered impossible due to the principle of legitimate expectations, but that position of the tax authorities was withdrawn in May 2023.

We believe this creates an inappropriate, unfree situation. And we see—through the Concertgebouw case and changes imposed there—that forced organisational change at the instruction of the tax authorities is not a purely theoretical risk. We avoid that risk, because freedom of association is a European fundamental right. We value that more highly.

3) ANBI as a broader system lever in society and payments infrastructure

We observe that ANBI functions within banking/compliance chains as a proxy label (“lower risk”). Without ANBI, friction arises more quickly: heavier onboarding, additional conditions, and sometimes exclusion. That touches freedom of association in practice: without a payment account, a foundation is effectively crippled—but banks do not readily provide an account without ANBI, or they impose additional organisational requirements.

Our considerations on ANBI

We are not “anti-tax”. Paying tax is normal. But we are against tax and status regimes being used as a stick to:

  • normalise data pooling and harvest special-category personal data into large government data pools;
  • force organisational changes that go beyond what is necessary and have no proportionate link to the stated objective;
  • maintain a system in which labels (ANBI vs non-ANBI, Label A vs no Label A, etc.) drive judgments, profiling, and exclusion—or in which public watchdogs are burdened disproportionately simply because they insist on working within a fundamental-rights framework.

We simply don’t like dragnets. We don’t like excessive supervision that violates fundamental rights. And we don’t like tax structures that go further than necessary and are not tailored to purpose and population.

ANBI: not a tax haven, but a mirage

We have set out our findings, examples, and legal anchors in a position paper: “ANBI looked like a tax haven, but turns out to be a Fata Morgana!” (31 January 2026). If you read it, you will understand in more detail why we have now filed an objection against the high gift tax we face as a non-ANBI organisation.

And if you really read and use the document, you will understand how much work went into it. If you want to respond, please email your experiences. And of course, as a token of appreciation—please stay under the exemption threshold!—you may also make a small donation to Human Rights in Finance.EU, IBAN: NL94 TRIO 0320 7857 85.