The Vinted exemption: why being reported isn't the same as owing tax

You’re above 30 sales on Vinted this year. You get a notice that your data is going to the tax authorities. And you panic, because you were just clearing out your closet. Kids’ clothes that got too small, your own wardrobe you don’t wear anymore. No shop, no buying-in, no profit motive.

Here’s where most explanations of DAC7 go wrong: being reported and owing tax are two completely different things. One is an administrative reporting duty for the platform. The other is a tax classification of your income. They happen to share the same €2,000 threshold, but legally they aren’t linked to each other. This article focuses on Belgium, since that’s the framework I know from experience; if you sell from another country, the reporting mechanism (DAC7) is the same across the EU, but the tax classification depends on your own country’s rules.

What DAC7 actually does

DAC7 is a European directive that requires platforms like Vinted, 2dehands and Airbnb to pass user data to the tax authorities once you complete 30 or more sales in a calendar year, or earn more than €2,000 in revenue. Either one is enough. Vinted then sends your name, address, date of birth, tax ID number, number of transactions and total revenue to the Belgian tax authority (FOD Financiën).

That’s it. That’s all that happens at that point. No tax is levied, no assessment is issued, no classification is assigned. It’s a data flow, not a tax decision. The tax authority gains visibility, and has used that data systematically for risk analysis since 2025. But having visibility into what you sold isn’t the same as determining that you owe tax on it.

The real question: what counts as “normal management of your private assets”

Belgian tax doctrine has a category that covers exactly this kind of selling: normal management of private assets (“normaal beheer van het privévermogen”). Transactions that fall under it are tax-free. Full stop.

Under the established administrative interpretation, it counts as normal management when a transaction isn’t done with speculative intent, and doesn’t become a profit-making activity through repetition.

Clearing out your closet after a move, reselling kids’ clothes because your child grew, thinning out your own wardrobe because your taste changed: none of that is speculation by definition. You didn’t buy those things to profit from them. You’re selling them because you no longer need them. And the burden of proof that something falls outside normal management sits with the tax authority, not with you.

This isn’t a new or vague rule of thumb. It’s the line Belgian courts have drawn for years in comparable cases. In 2022, the Antwerp court of appeal ruled that a whisky enthusiast who regularly bought and sold bottles stayed within normal management, because there was no speculative intent, despite the regularity. In a case involving a sold racing pigeon, the court ruled the same way: without speculative intent, it stays normal management, even at a large amount.

Since 2026, there’s a hard line

Until recently, this was all a matter of facts: no fixed threshold, just criteria you had to weigh case by case. That changes with the personal income tax reform in effect from the 2026 tax year.

A de-minimis rule is being introduced in Article 90, first paragraph, 1° of the Belgian income tax code (WIB92): below a certain amount of gross proceeds from occasional transactions involving movable goods (think: clothing, belongings, collectibles), there’s a statutory, irrebuttable presumption of normal management. Irrebuttable means the tax authority can no longer dispute it, even if it wanted to. The base amount is €972, indexed to €2,000 for the 2026 tax year.

See the pattern? That’s the exact same amount as the DAC7 reporting threshold. Not because the two laws overlap by accident, but because the legislator specifically wanted to cover this scenario: people who show up on DAC7’s radar, but whose selling was never actually taxable in the first place. Hence the nickname already circulating: the “Vinted exemption.”

Concretely, and this is the scenario from the title: if you made 35 sales totalling €1,500, you get reported through DAC7 (because of the 30+ transactions), but you automatically and irrebuttably fall under normal management for tax purposes (because you’re under €2,000). Reported, not taxable. Both things are true at the same time.

And above €2,000?

Above that threshold, you don’t automatically lose your exemption. You only lose its automatic, irrebuttable character. You fall back on the classic criteria test from above: was there speculative intent, and did the regularity turn your selling into a profit-making activity.

Things that work in your favour in that assessment:

You’re selling things you bought for your own use, not to resell.
You’re not systematically buying new stock to resell.
You’re not using borrowed money to finance purchases.
You don’t run a professional structure: no VAT number for this activity, no active marketing, no purchased stock you hold while waiting for a good price.
You often sell at or below your original purchase price, not systematically with a profit margin.

Things that work against you: regularly buying the same type of item to resell, financing with outside capital, a fast buy-and-sell turnaround that points to an organised approach. Once that pattern becomes visible, the tax authority can reclassify the income as miscellaneous income (Art. 90, 1° WIB92) or, for a genuinely professional activity, as professional income (Art. 23, §1, 1° WIB92). Under professional income, progressive tax rates climb up to 50%. I go deeper into those three tax categories, DAC7 and the VAT thresholds in paying tax on Vinted sales in Belgium.

Why I’m registered myself

For contrast, and to sharpen the distinction: I’ve been officially registered as a student self-employed person for Studio Maud since February 2025. Not because I’m above a threshold, but because my activity doesn’t fall under normal management in the first place. I buy vintage Ralph Lauren pieces specifically to resell them at a profit. That’s exactly the speculative, systematic buying and selling the criteria above classify as not-normal-management, regardless of how many transactions or how much revenue I generate. For me there’s no grey zone: buying with profit intent and regularity is a profit-making activity by definition.

That’s the difference with someone selling their own wardrobe or their kids’ outgrown clothes: for me, the process starts at the purchase, made with the intent to resell. For the occasional seller, it starts with things already at home, bought for personal use, with no sales plan whatsoever beforehand.

What to keep as proof

If the tax authority ever asks questions, or if you just want to be sure your file holds up, it helps to have this ready:

An overview of what you sold and when you acquired it. A simple list is enough: item, acquisition date (even if that’s “a few years ago, for personal use”), sale date, sale price.
Photos or descriptions showing these were used, personal belongings, not new or unused stock.
No purchase receipts pointing to systematic buying-in for resale. Missing purchase receipts aren’t a problem, they fit with “I bought this to wear at some point,” not with “I bought this in to sell.”
A rough estimate of your own purchase price versus sale price. If you often sell below your original purchase price, that’s a strong indicator of normal management: you’re not making a profit, you’re just moving things along.
No advertising or marketing activity around your selling, and no actively purchased stock you’re holding onto.

This doesn’t need to be formal bookkeeping. It’s a file that shows, within ten minutes, that you’re simply clearing out your closet, not running a business.

This article gives a factual outline of the current Belgian rules, including a recent legislative change (the de-minimis rule from the 2026 tax year) whose final status couldn’t be confirmed with complete certainty at the time of writing. If you’re in doubt about your own situation, check the latest status with FOD Financiën or an accountant, especially if your proceeds sit close to the €2,000 mark.