Tax fraud among 45% of Super de Boer franchisees
On 11 November 2016, the Gelderland District Court, Arnhem location, sentenced various former Super de Boer franchisees to community service and fines for tax fraud. They were found guilty of skimming amounts of money from the cash register, so that those amounts remained outside the administration and therefore no tax was paid on them.
During an investigation by the Tax and Customs Administration in May 2008, it was found at a Super de Boer franchisee in Ede that negative round amounts were regularly entered in its cash register. These negative amounts were no longer included in the turnover according to the cash register files because they had been deducted from this. The Tax and Customs Administration then conducted further investigation into previously conducted due diligence at 64 other Super de Boer franchisees. This showed that the same fraud method was used in three cases. Subsequently, the Tax and Customs Administration requested the cash register files of all 240 franchisees for 2006 and 2007 from Super de Boer Winkels BV. After an analysis thereof, the Tax and Customs Administration concluded that probably 45% of these entrepreneurs skimmed off their turnover in a similar way. Subsequently, after consultation between the Tax and Customs Administration, the FIOD and the Functional Public Prosecutor’s Office, it was decided to criminally investigate the main suspected fraudsters. Ultimately, four people were actually prosecuted and convicted.
See District Court of Gelderland 11 November 2016, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:6163, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:6164 and ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:6165
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
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.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
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