Reducing the risk of fictitious employment
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
Recently, the new Minister of Social Affairs, De Geus, made the choice that he wants to put an end once and for all to the discussion whether there is self-employment or a disguised employer/employee relationship among the self-employed (without personnel). This problem also occurs in the business services sector.
Testing by the Employee Insurance Agency (UWVs), former industrial associations and/or administrative agencies, yields varying results in the case of franchise relationships, among other things. If the self-employed person in question is regarded as a fictitious employee, whether or not with retroactive effect, this entails that social premiums and wage tax are (still) owed by the franchisor and/or franchisee to the relevant UWV and/or the tax authorities. . Whether there is an obligation to take out insurance depends on a number of criteria. The most important are capital, risk and so-called other characteristics. Specifically, the following matters are important:
Does the franchisee have independent working capital?
Has the franchisee actually made investments?
Does the franchisee have independent debtors and creditors and is his income uncertain and variable?
Does the franchisee trade under its own name or under another name?
Does the franchisee advertise independently?
Does the franchisee keep independent accounts and, if relevant, is he charged for sales tax?
Although these criteria will remain important in practice, the Minister has now ruled that there is only an insurance obligation if the self-employed person has committed fraud with the aim of circumventing the insurance obligation. The minister therefore opts for a very considerable expansion of the concept of independence in order to prevent unwanted or unintentional (too fast) arrival at compulsory insurance and the establishment of a fictitious employment relationship. It therefore seems likely that the risk of this will be significantly reduced in the very short term.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.