On 1 January 2025, the enforcement moratorium was lifted returning the Dutch Tax Authority’s ability to actively enforce regulations against bogus self-employment. The reaction was immediate. According to the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, the number of self-employed persons who resigned increased by 47% compared to the previous year while the number of self-employed people starting as of 1 January 2025 decreased by 18%. The most significant decreases were observed in the security, childcare, and healthcare sectors, with the healthcare sector experiencing the greatest reduction.
Given the notable developments in bogus self-employment over the past three months, this article discusses the most important ones: the recent Supreme Court Taxi ruling and the political impact of bogus self-employment.
Supreme Court Taxi ruling
In the case between a taxi company and the trade union FNV, one of the best-known examples in the debate about bogus self-employment, the FNV argued that the taxi drivers are de facto employees and subject to the Collective Labour Agreement Taxi Transport. In 2021, the court ruled in favour of FNV but the taxi company appealed the decision. Instead of issuing a final judgment, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal posed preliminary questions to the Supreme Court, which focused on the application of the recent Deliveroo judgment.
In the Deliveroo judgment, the Supreme Court determined that all relevant factors must be considered collectively when evaluating an employment agreement and highlighted several criteria that may be significant in this evaluation, including the nature and duration of the work, working hours, and the entrepreneurship of the worker. Clarification was sought from the Supreme Court on the latter viewpoint, among others.
Last February, the Supreme Court confirmed that there is no fixed ranking between the different criteria. External factors, beyond the scope of the direct employment relationship, can be included in the assessment. As a result, two workers doing the same work for a client may be assessed differently depending on their (external) entrepreneurship: one as a self-employed person and one as an employee. “Entrepreneurship” in the sense of the Deliveroo judgment refers to the general entrepreneurial situation of the worker. It also refers to circumstances outside the specific relationship between the worker and the client.
With the Supreme Court's answers, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal can now assess whether the taxi drivers in question should be classified as bogus self-employed persons. The importance of these answers, however, extends beyond taxi drivers. This ruling provides more clarity on when a worker is considered an employee or a self-employed person.
Parliamentary questions and legislation: new developments
Politicians also eagerly awaited the Supreme Court's answers. The Tax Office recently stated in a podcast that in practice they rarely consider entrepreneurship, the subject of the preliminary questions in the taxi case, when determining bogus self-employment. Subsequently, the conservative-liberal VVD party raised parliamentary questions.
Shortly after the Supreme Court's answers, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment and the State Secretary for Taxation, Revenue and Customs responded the government confirms that the criteria for assessing an employment agreement as established in the Deliveroo case should be done holistically (i.e. considering all factors in context), as ruled by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the government announced that the external entrepreneurship criterion will be incorporated into the bill Clarification of assessment of labour relations and legal presumption (Verduidelijking beoordeling arbeidsrelaties en rechtsvermoeden or VBAR).
The minister and state secretary emphasised that the Tax Authority strictly follows the legislation, including the recent Supreme Court ruling. They also mentioned that the Tax Authority aims to provide legal certainty for self-employed workers. As long as an individual is a legitimate entrepreneur, there should be no concerns.
On 27 March 2025, a letter to parliament announced that the VBAR bill will be amended to align with the Supreme Court's taxi ruling. The taxi ruling presents a different approach to assessing external entrepreneurship compared to the current VBAR bill. Currently, the bill only considers external entrepreneurship when the criteria regarding the supervision of work and working at one's own risk are balanced. The proposed amendment will fully account for external entrepreneurship, along with the supervision of work and working at one's own risk.
Conclusion
Enforcement and legal developments on bogus self-employment are creating significant changes. Companies and self-employed workers are advised to review their labour relations and adjust contracts and working methods where necessary.
Contact
Should you have any questions on bogus self-employment and assistance in adjusting contracts and methods of work to comply with the judicial precedent in the Netherlands, please contact us.
