Declaration of employment relationship: clarity and certainty now a fact.
Many franchise relationships contain a limited or significant risk of a disguised employer/employee relationship (fictitious) employment. To prevent this risk, legal practice has a number of instruments at its disposal. One of those instruments is an adequate and, above all, relevant Declaration of Employment Relationship (var). This so-called var statement serves to prevent the creation of a (fictitious) employment relationship. Please note that this does not only concern the relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. Such an unpleasant situation can also arise between the franchisee and the principal / customer. If that is the case, an obligation arises for payroll tax and employee insurance contributions. However, if it is obvious that the franchisee is self-employed, this will not be done. The var therefore provides clarity about the tax position and status of the franchisee and thus also about his independent status.
A bill has now entered into force which entails that the new var statement will lead in an absolute sense to an indemnification against any premium levy and wage tax levy, unless there is fraudulent conduct on the part of the applicant. Contrary to what was sometimes the case in the past, absolute legal certainty has now been created by the legislator. The franchisee can request the var statement from the tax authorities.
In the interest of the franchisor, franchisee and the client / customer, it is important to create this legal certainty in advance and to communicate clearly. In this way (major) work problems are prevented and the work can be carried out without any problems for the duration of the var statement. The new bill now guarantees clarity and legal certainty in the interests of all parties involved.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
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.