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
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).