Dog tax: out of date?

The origin of the dog tax dates back to the Middle Ages. Back then, the tax was introduced to reduce nuisance from stray dogs and prevent the spread of rabies. Later, the government also saw it as a means of levying transport tax, especially during the time when dog carts were a common means of transport.

Schep explains that dogs used to be seen primarily as working animals. "You can see that the design of the dog tax has followed the emancipatory movement of dogs and animal rights. Previously, dogs were used functionally for guarding sites and yards or pulling carts. Dogs without such economic or practical use were considered ‘useless dogs’. At the time, the justification for the dog tax matched this distinction: ‘useless’ dogs were seen as a form of luxury and therefore taxed. Dogs with a function were mostly left out of the levy", Schep said. Dogs are now mostly companion animals and the justification for the levy is more open to debate partly because of this. Why pay for a dog and not a cat?

Wide variations between municipalities

The amount of dog tax varies greatly from one municipality to another. In Katwijk, for example, dog owners pay 140 euros a year, while in Hoorn the amount is under 15 euros. Schep clarifies: "That difference is easy to explain. The national legislator determines which taxes municipalities may levy, but municipalities themselves have the freedom to set the rates. Some municipalities experience more nuisance and want to limit the number of dogs by financially discouraging this through the dog tax. Other municipalities, on the contrary, are moving towards abolition and moderating the rates."

A leading reason for the decline in dog tax is declining public acceptance. A common criticism of the dog tax is that the revenue is not spent specifically on facilities for dog owners. The tax revenue flows into the general resources of the municipality and does not have to be used, for example, for the construction of dog walking areas or cleaning up dog poo. A number of municipalities listen to this criticism and do spend all or part of the revenue on dog walking facilities. Despite this social criticism, the dog tax held up in a Supreme Court case.

Supreme Court ruling on dog tax municipality of Sittard-Geleen

The central issue in cassation was whether the municipality of Sittard-Geleen was justified in levying dog tax. The Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch had previously ruled that this tax violated the equality principle of Article 1 of the Constitution, because the tax was not related to costs incurred by dog ownership for the municipality.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that this judgment was incorrect. Article 226 of the Municipalities Act gives municipalities the power to levy dog tax irrespective of specific costs that dog ownership entails. According to the Supreme Court, this power should not be tested against Article 1 of the Constitution, but rather against international discrimination prohibitions (ICCPR and ECHR). Given the legislator's wide policy discretion, the distinction between dog owners and non-dog owners is justified.

18-10-2013 ECLI:NL:HR:2013:917 

End of dog tax in sight?

If it were up to Schep, the dog tax would disappear. But only after a thorough review of the entire municipal tax mix in the Municipal Act. "The Municipal Act was last seriously revised in 1995 as far as municipal taxes are concerned. Some taxes, such as the tourist tax, even date back to 1970. As for that tax, tourist accommodation in 1970 has changed drastically. Think of the rise of platforms like Airbnb and Booking. Municipalities are increasingly running into the limits of their levy options. This leads to unfair situations compared to classic forms of stay at campsites and hotels. Municipalities have also been given more and more tasks by the central government, without increasing the scope to levy revenue for this themselves. As a result, more and more municipalities are running into problems. As far as I am concerned, the dog tax can therefore be scrapped if it is matched by a thorough overhaul of the municipal tax system."

The dog tax seems a relic of another era, when dogs were primarily functional animals. With changing societal norms and legal debates surrounding the justification of local taxes, it seems a matter of time before this tax is finally a thing of the past. As Schep concluded during his radio appearance: "If the time comes for a review of municipal taxes, the dog tax will be the first levy to disappear."