Employer’s tax debt does not automatically jeopardize an employee’s residence permit request

October 1, 2026

Introduction

An employer’s outstanding tax debt does not automatically mean that an employee’s application for permanent residence will be refused. In a recent judgment of July 17, 2026, the Court of First Instance of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba clarified that an employer’s tax debt cannot, without sufficient legal and factual grounds, be decisive in determining whether an employee’s income is sustainable.

The judgment provides important clarification on the assessment of sustainable means of subsistence for permanent residence under the immigration rules applicable in the Caribbean Netherlands.

The legal framework

Under Article 9(1)(c) of the Admission and Expulsion Act BES (In Dutch: ‘Wet toelating en uitzetting BES’), a residence permit may be refused if the applicant cannot demonstrate that they will have sufficient means of subsistence. For permanent residence, Article 5.45(1)(a) of the Admission and Expulsion Decree BES requires the foreign national to have sufficient means of subsistence independently and sustainably.

The applicable policy (in Dutch: ‘Circulaire Toelating en Uitzetting Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba’) further provides that income is considered sustainable if it will remain available for at least one year from the date of the decision. The same standards for assessing sustainability apply to applications for temporary and permanent residence.

When an employer’s tax debt becomes an immigration issue

The case concerned a Peruvian national who had lived and worked on Bonaire for approximately six years. He was employed as a mechanic under an employment contract for an indefinite term and had previously been granted several temporary residence permits.

In January 2025, he applied for a permanent residence permit. The Minister of Asylum and Migration rejected the application on the grounds that he had not demonstrated that he independently and sustainably had sufficient means of subsistence.

The Minister questioned whether the applicant’s income met the sustainability requirement, noting that his employer had an outstanding tax debt of USD 123,060 for which no payment arrangement was in place. The Minister also noted that the applicant had not provided additional evidence of salary payments despite having been given the opportunity to do so.

The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that he had a stable employment relationship and that his income was both sufficient and sustainable. In support of his position, he submitted income tax assessments and bank statements showing that he had consistently received his salary.

The Court: the employee’s income must be assessed on its own merits

The Court found that the Minister had insufficiently substantiated the conclusion that the applicant’s income was not sustainable.

The applicant had an employment contract for an indefinite term, and the evidence demonstrated that he had consistently received his salary. Taken together, these circumstances provided sufficient grounds to conclude that his income would remain available for at least one year following the relevant decision.

Importantly, the Court noted that the applicable immigration policy does not list an employer’s outstanding tax debt as a factor in assessing whether an employee’s income is sustainable. The policy even provides that a probationary period does not affect this assessment, despite the uncertainty it may create about the continuation of employment. The Court therefore found insufficient grounds to give the employer’s tax debt decisive weight.

The Minister argued that an employer’s tax position is relevant in work permit procedures and should therefore also be considered in permanent residence applications. The Court distinguished between the two procedures. A work permit concerns the employer’s position, while a permanent residence application concerns the employee’s right to reside. Since the employee had no control over the employer’s tax debt, it could not be held against him in assessing his application for permanent residence.

Continued salary payments

The Court also considered whether the employer’s tax debt, even if relevant, actually made the applicant’s income unsustainable.

The Court noted that the tax debt had existed for some time, while the applicant had continued to receive his salary. In addition, approximately half of the relevant one-year period had passed since the contested decision without any indication that his income had ceased.

The Court therefore found that there was also insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s income was not sustainable.

What does this mean for employers and foreign nationals?

The judgment highlights an important distinction between an employer’s financial position and an employee’s ability to meet the income requirements for permanent residence.

An employer’s outstanding tax debt does not automatically mean that an employee’s income is unsustainable. The assessment must be based on the applicable immigration rules and the circumstances of the individual case. A stable employment relationship and evidence of regular salary payments may provide strong supporting evidence for an application.

For foreign nationals applying for permanent residence on Bonaire, the judgment highlights the importance of maintaining clear documentation of their employment and income, such as an employment contract, income tax assessments and bank statements.

For employers, the judgment serves as a reminder that an outstanding tax debt and an employee’s immigration position are distinct matters, even where the employer’s financial position may be relevant in other immigration procedures.

The outcome

The Court declared the appeal well-founded, annulled the decision rejecting the applicant’s objection and ordered the Minister to issue a new decision within two months, taking the Court’s judgment into account.

The Court did not itself grant the applicant a permanent residence permit. Instead, it found that the Minister had insufficiently substantiated the rejection and required the application to be reconsidered.

Key takeaway: The sustainability of an employee’s income must be assessed based on the applicable immigration framework and the circumstances of the individual case. An employer’s tax debt, without any further or sufficient legal and factual grounds, is not in itself enough to conclude that an employee’s income is not sustainable.

Practical

If you have any questions regarding immigration matters in the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, or require assistance with complying with local immigration requirements, please feel free to contact us.