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
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.