Freelance dossier

The first case concerned an accountant who worked via his own private limited company (B.V.) for an accountancy firm as a self-employed person but was then deemed by the court to be an employee after all. The firm terminated the agreement unlawfully and must pay more than €67,000 in compensation to the now former employee. The accountant had worked full-time for an accountancy firm under an "agreement to provide services" via his own B.V. since January 2025. The firm terminated the arrangement in May 2025. The accountant claimed that there was, in fact, an employment agreement and asked for compensation.

The court ruled that the arrangement was indeed one of employment. The main reasons being:

• The work was an integral part of the organisation and related to its core activities.
• The accountant worked full-time, had to be at the office at least three days a week and was not at liberty to find a replacement.
• He had no business risks and acted in the name of the firm when dealing with external contacts.
• The B.V. (private limited company) structure was mainly chosen for tax reasons and did not affect the actual situation.

Because the termination did not comply with the rules for employment contracts (no permission sought from the Employee Insurance Administration Agency (UWV) nor consent given by the employee) this was unlawful. The accountant accepted the dismissal but was awarded compensation for various things:

• Fair compensation:     €35,000
• Fixed damages:           €31,103.25 (three months’ salary)
• Transition allowance: €1,436.02 
• The accountancy firm also had to pay legal costs

The court did not set the salary at the same high level as the rate stated in the agreement to provide services, but applied a "fair" monthly salary appropriate for an experienced accountant in salaried employment.

Important signal: Even if the parties deliberately opt for a contract to provide services, this can still be regarded as an employment contract if the actual circumstances indicate that this is so. The binding nature of employment law takes precedence over the intentions of the parties. Because this is not a tax ruling, it is not sure whether the tax courts would have reached the same conclusion but it may be logically assumed that this would be the case. 

You can find the full ruling here (in Dutch).

The second ruling relates to a tax case. It concerned the question of whether drivers were employed by a Dutch transport company or a Cyprus-based consultancy that made them available to the transport company through a payrolling construction. The tax authorities considered that the employment was with the transport company, not least because the company exercised authority and arranged the salary payments indirectly, in that the salaries were only paid to the drivers after the transport company had paid the salary amounts to the Cypriotic consultancy. The Court of Appeal ruled, however, that the drivers had an employment contract with the consultancy and that the operations, including the relationship of authority and the day-to-day management by the transport company, lay with the payrolling.  That the consultancy only paid the salary after it had been paid by the transport company and the contracts were insubstantial did not alter this. There was no employment contract between the drivers and the transport company and thus the supplementary assessments were invalid. 

Important signal: Even in a payrolling situation, the formal employer, the payroll company, remains responsible for the employment contract, even if the hiring party exercises day-to-day authority and arranges many practical matters. The lack of proper contracts or the fact that the hiring party paid advances, did not change this. Daily management is clearly not enough to overrule a payroll agreement (or any other agreement) when accepting employment from the hiring party. 

You can find the full ruling here (in Dutch).