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
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.