When turnover rises, most entrepreneurs focus on VAT, staffing, and cash flow. Fewer look at their own salary. Yet for directors of a Dutch BV, that number, the gebruikelijk loon, or customary salary, can quietly become a weak spot in an otherwise healthy business.

The rule is simple in principle. If you are a director-major shareholder (DGA), you must pay yourself a salary that is considered “customary” for your role. In practice, this means at least the statutory minimum amount set each year, unless you can clearly justify paying less. The idea behind the rule is straightforward: the tax authorities do not want profit to be left in the BV or paid out as dividends while the director takes an artificially low salary.

Where it becomes more complicated is when turnover grows significantly, but the director’s salary stays at the minimum. A high and stable turnover signals economic activity and earning capacity. If the company generates solid revenue and profit, but the CEO remains on the lowest allowed salary year after year, that mismatch may attract attention. Not because growth is a problem, but because it raises the question: would someone in this position, in a comparable company, really earn so little?

For a micro-entrepreneur, this is not an abstract fiscal debate. It touches cash flow and tax planning directly. Paying yourself more salary means higher wage tax and social security contributions now. Keeping salary low and taking dividends can feel more efficient. But if the tax authorities later decide the salary was not realistic, they can correct it retroactively. That means additional wage tax, possible interest, and unnecessary stress, often years after the fact.

I recently saw a small consultancy with a turnover well above half a million euros. The director paid herself the statutory minimum, arguing that profits were reinvested. That can be a valid argument, but only if the financials clearly support it. In her case, profits were healthy and reserves comfortable. The salary level no longer matched the economic reality of the business. The risk was not dramatic, but it was real, and avoidable.

The key is proportionality. Does your salary reflect your responsibilities, your company’s profitability, and what someone else in a similar role would earn? If you choose to stay below what seems reasonable, make sure you can substantiate why. Think of structural reinvestments, temporary downturns, or sector benchmarks. Put the reasoning on paper. Silence is not a strategy.

For small business owners, this is less about maximizing tax efficiency and more about coherence. Your salary tells a story about your company. When that story aligns with the numbers, you reduce friction with the tax authorities and create clarity for yourself. Sometimes a modest upward adjustment, planned, calculated, and documented, is enough to keep things balanced.

Growth is good. But as your business evolves, your own position within it must evolve as well. A healthy company deserves a salary that makes sense.