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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.