Copyright in IT: what’s changing in 2026

This reform is excellent news for IT companies, self-employed professionals and company directors operating through a management company. However, it does not mean that all developers will automatically qualify for the regime. A prior assessment remains essential to ensure the correct tax and social security treatment.

Why this reform?

Until 2022, software developers could benefit from the tax regime for copyright income.

However, the reform that came into force in 2023 excluded computer programs from the scope of the regime, depriving software developers of this tax benefit.

The new law reverses this exclusion by reintroducing computer programs into Article 17, § 1, 5° of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992. Software is therefore once again considered a work that may qualify for the tax regime for copyright income.

Who can benefit from the regime?

The reform does not only apply to software developers.

Depending on the role and the nature of the services provided, the regime may apply to:

• software developers;
• software engineers;
• software architects;
• DevOps engineers;
• certain UX/UI designers;
• technical writers;
• more generally, anyone involved in creating an original work protected by copyright.

Eligibility depends on the activities actually performed, rather than on the job title.

Does internally developed software also qualify?

This was one of the main questions raised by the reform.

The copyright regime requires the rights to be transferred or licensed to a third party, including for the purposes of communication to the public, performance, public presentation or reproduction.

This condition could have suggested that software developed exclusively for a company's internal use or for a single client was excluded.

However, the Minister of Finance recently provided an important clarification during the parliamentary proceedings. He confirmed that these different forms of exploitation are alternatives and that loading, running, displaying, transmitting or storing software are considered acts of reproduction.

In practice, this clarification means that internal developments, tailor-made software and applications created for a specific client may also fall within the scope of the copyright regime, provided the other conditions are met.

The regime remains subject to strict conditions

The reintroduction of software does not mean that every self-employed developer can automatically receive part of their remuneration in the form of copyright income.

As in other sectors, several conditions must be met.

Beneficiaries of the regime must be able to demonstrate, among other things:

• the existence of an original creation protected by copyright;
• an effective transfer or licensing of the rights;
• an economically justified valuation of the remuneration attributed to the transfer or licensing of the copyright;
• sufficient documentation demonstrating the existence of the creations and the rights transferred.

The Constitutional Court and the recent practice of the Rulings Commission emphasise that only services with a genuine creative dimension can qualify for the regime.

The lump-sum deduction for expenses is abolished

The reform also includes a less favourable measure.

Since 1 January 2026, beneficiaries who do not hold an arts work certificate can no longer apply the lump-sum deduction for expenses to their copyright income.

The regime therefore remains attractive from a tax perspective, but the benefit is smaller than before the reform.

What are the social security implications?

The social security treatment of copyright income differs depending on whether the beneficiary works as an employee or as a self-employed professional.

Employees

For employees, the situation remains uncertain today.

Although the legislator has reintroduced software developers into the tax regime for copyright income, the Belgian National Social Security Office (NSSO) has not yet updated its administrative instructions. These still refer to works covered by Book XI, Title 5 of the Belgian Code of Economic Law, without taking into account the reintroduction of computer programs.

In practice, this lack of alignment between tax law and NSSO regulations calls for caution when introducing a copyright scheme for employees.

Self-employed professionals

For self-employed professionals, the situation is different.

Self-employed professionals do not fall under NSSO regulations. The issue must be assessed under the social status of self-employed persons and, more specifically, Article 5 of Royal Decree No. 38 of 27 July 1967. To date, the social security institutions have not provided any specific clarification regarding the consequences of reintroducing software into the tax regime for copyright income.

Legal doctrine considers that this provision may apply where the income received genuinely derives from the transfer or licensing of copyright and the conditions set out in Article 5 are met. However, this analysis does not prejudge how the social security institutions may assess each case based on its specific circumstances.

In practice, the fact that income qualifies as copyright income for tax purposes is therefore not sufficient for it to be automatically exempt from social security contributions. A case-by-case assessment remains essential.

What about management companies?

Many IT professionals currently operate through a management company. Using such a structure does not, in itself, prevent the application of the tax regime for copyright income.

To date, the Rulings Commission has not yet published a decision specifically addressing the application of the regime to software developers since their reintroduction into the scope of copyright. However, several decisions issued in 2025 in other sectors provide useful insights into the methodology applied by the Rulings Commission when assessing the regime for company directors receiving remuneration for the transfer or licensing of their copyright. Although these decisions relate to other sectors, the principles they establish appear fully applicable to the IT sector following the reintroduction of computer programs into the tax regime for copyright income.

These decisions show that the Rulings Commission does not limit its assessment to verifying the existence of a protected work. It also examines:

• the genuinely creative nature of the activities performed by the company director;
• the proportion of creative services compared with the other services provided;
• the existence of an agreement governing the transfer or licensing of copyright;
• the method used to determine the remuneration attributed to copyright and whether it is economically justified;
• the documentation identifying the works created and the rights actually transferred.

These decisions also confirm the practice of the Rulings Commission, which accepts a lump-sum valuation of copyright provided it is based on an objective, consistent and sufficiently documented methodology, taking into account, among other things, the actual proportion of creative activities performed by the company director. By contrast, a standardised approach or a method based on automatically applied percentages is not recommended. Each situation must be assessed individually based on its specific circumstances.

In practice, management companies wishing to introduce such a scheme should carefully document the creations produced, the arrangements for transferring or licensing the rights and the valuation method used. For more sensitive cases or where significant amounts are involved, an advance ruling can provide certainty regarding the intended tax treatment.

How do you implement a copyright scheme?

Implementing a copyright scheme requires an appropriate legal and tax structure.

This includes:

• analysing the roles concerned;
• identifying creations that may qualify for copyright protection;
• drafting or adapting contractual clauses relating to intellectual property;
• compiling technical and legal documentation demonstrating the existence of the creations;
• determining an economically justified remuneration for the copyright;
• ideally, obtaining an advance ruling to secure the chosen tax treatment.

Conclusion

The return of copyright to the IT sector creates significant opportunities for companies, self-employed professionals and company directors operating through a management company.

This reform once again provides access to an attractive tax regime. However, its implementation requires a thorough assessment of the applicable conditions, both from a tax and a social security perspective.

Our Tax & Legal team supports employers, self-employed professionals and company directors in assessing their eligibility, structuring intellectual property agreements, preparing ruling applications and ensuring the correct tax and social security treatment of copyright income.