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

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top