Categorie: Nieuws

De Sociale Verzekeringsbank heeft op 20 maart 2020 bekend gemaakt dat dit geen gevolg zal hebben op de sociale zekerheidspositie van werknemers die normaal in de Europese Unie (EU), de Europese Economische Ruimte (EER) of Zwitserland werkzaam zijn. Deze werknemers blijven sociaal verzekerd in het land waar zij voor de invoering van de Coronamaatregelen verzekerd waren. Geen verdere actie is vereist.

Meer informatie?

Voor nadere informatie kunt u contact opnemen met Sander Michaël of Annette van Scherpenzeel.

Vanuit het buitenland in Nederland te werk gestelde werknemers hebben in ieder geval recht op de in Nederland geldende regels met betrekking tot:

• Minimumloon
• Minimum aantal vakantiedagen
• Arbeidsomstandigheden
• Rusttijden
• Gelijke behandeling

Als er een algemeen verbindend verklaarde Cao van toepassing is, hebben de werknemers ook recht op specifieke rechten uit deze Cao.

Administratieve verplichtingen

1. De buitenlandse werkgever dient op verzoek inlichtingen te verstrekken aan de Inspectie SZW
2. Op de werkplek van de werknemer dient een aantal specifieke documenten (digitaal) beschikbaar te zijn, zoals de arbeidsovereenkomst, loonstroken, overzicht van gewerkte uren en sociale zekerheidsbijdragen
3. Aanwijzing van een contact persoon in Nederland als aanspreekpunt naar de Inspectie SZW
4. Melding van buitenlandse werknemers die in Nederland te werk worden gesteld.

De meldingsplicht

Voor wie?

Buitenlandse, in de EU gevestigde, werkgevers die werknemers te werk stellen in Nederland. Voor een aantal soorten incidentele werkzaamheden geldt geen meldingsplicht. Een meldingsplicht geldt ook voor zelfstandigen die werkzaam zijn in bepaalde specifieke sectoren. De meldingsplicht geldt voor tewerkstellingen per 1 maart 2020. Als de tewerkstelling vóór 1 maart 2020 is gestart, hoeft er dus niet gemeld te worden.

Hoe?

De melding dient plaats te vinden via het online meldloket https://www.postedworkers.nl/online-melden

Het Nederlandse bedrijf dat gebruik maakt van de werknemers dient de melding te controleren.

Sanctie?

Niet naleving van de hierboven genoemde administratieve verplichtingen kan tot een boete leiden.

Meer informatie?

Bij vragen of voor meer informatie kunt u contact opnemen met Sander Michaël of Chris van Wijngaarden.

Dit is volgens de Hoge Raad en een Besluit van de Staatssecretaris het geval als:

1. Er een gezagsverhouding bestaat tussen de werknemer en de buitenlandse groepsvennootschap, en
2. De werkzaamheden van de werknemer een integraal onderdeel zijn van de bedrijfsactiviteiten van de buitenlandse groepsvennootschap, en
3. De formele werkgever de salariskosten geïndividualiseerd doorbelast naar de buitenlandse groepsvennootschap.

Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant heeft nu echter geoordeeld dat een geïndividualiseerde doorbelasting niet nodig is en het in zijn algemeenheid voldoende is als de salariskosten ten laste zijn gekomen van de buitenlandse groepsvennootschap.

Deze uitspraak kan tot gevolg hebben dat buitenlandse werknemers/bestuurders die werkzaamheden verrichten in Nederland eerder aan de Nederlands belastingheffing onderworpen zijn indien op basis van transfer pricing regels salariskosten deel uitmaken van de intercompany doorbelastingen. Ook voor Nederlandse werknemers werkzaam in het buitenland kan dit tot gevolg hebben dat eerder een salary split aanwezig is, wat tot belastingvoordeel kan leiden. De Staatssecretaris van Financiën heeft beroep aangetekend tegen de uitspraak van de rechtbank. In de tussentijd is het raadzaam uw intercompany transfer pricing policy in combinatie met internationaal werkzame werknemers / bestuurders te reviewen, om te bekijken of belasting risico’s aanwezig zijn of eventueel voordelen te behalen zijn.

Meer informatie?

Bij vragen of voor meer informatie kunt u contact opnemen met Sander Michaël of Chris van Wijngaarden.

The Dutch State Secretary of Finance updates its Decree low tax jurisdictions and non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (´Decree´) every year. The non-cooperative jurisdictions as listed on the EU blacklist on the moment of publication of the updated Decree, are included in the Decree. This means that, if Panama, Cayman Islands, Palau and Seychelles are still listed on the EU blacklist upon publication of the Decree for 2021, the Dutch CFC-rules will become applicable to entities located in Panama, Cayman Islands, Palau and Seychelles, transactions with these jurisdictions will no longer be eligible for concluding an Advance Tax Ruling or an Advance Pricing Agreement and the conditional withholding tax on interest and royalties will become applicable on interest and royalty payments to these jurisdictions. The EU Finance Ministers regularly check whether the blacklisted jurisdictions fulfilled their obligations and update the EU blacklist on an ongoing basis and it is therefore not certain that the aforementioned rules will become applicable to Panama, Cayman Islands, Palau and Seychelles. The next update of the EU blacklist is expected in October 2020.

See our earlier post on the update of the Dutch list of low tax jurisdictions.

More information?

Please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan or Gerriët Nagelhout.

The Dutch State Secretary of Finance updates its Decree low tax jurisdictions and non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (´Decree´) every year. The non-cooperative jurisdictions as listed on the EU blacklist on the moment of publication of the updated Decree, are included in the Decree. This means that, if Panama, Cayman Islands, Palau and Seychelles are still listed on the EU blacklist upon publication of the Decree for 2021, the Dutch CFC-rules will become applicable to entities located in Panama, Cayman Islands, Palau and Seychelles, transactions with these jurisdictions will no longer be eligible for concluding an Advance Tax Ruling or an Advance Pricing Agreement and the conditional withholding tax on interest and royalties will become applicable on interest and royalty payments to these jurisdictions. The EU Finance Ministers regularly check whether the blacklisted jurisdictions fulfilled their obligations and update the EU blacklist on an ongoing basis and it is therefore not certain that the aforementioned rules will become applicable to Panama, Cayman Islands, Palau and Seychelles. The next update of the EU blacklist is expected in October 2020.

See our earlier post on the update of the Dutch list of low tax jurisdictions.

More information?

Please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan or Gerriët Nagelhout.

Köln-Aktienfonds Deka has requested a refund of Dutch dividend withholding tax withheld on dividend that it has received from its Dutch (portfolio) investments, arguing that a Dutch fund (“FBI”) was allowed receiving such refund under Dutch law (until 2007). Key question is whether Köln-Aktiënfonds Deka can be compared to a FBI under EU law. To meet the FBI regime, Dutch law has embedded various requirements regarding among others the quality and quantity of the shareholders in a FBI and the re-distribution requirement. Köln-Aktienfonds Deka argued that it does not have access to its shareholders information. It furthermore argued that, to the extent that annual earnings are not distributed, they are deemed to be distributed and taxed at the level of its shareholders / participants under specific German law.

In short, the ECJ ruled that the Dutch national court should determine whether or not resident and non-resident investment funds are subject to the same administrative burden for providing information of their shareholders / participants. If non-resident investment funds are subject to an excessive administrative burden, the shareholders requirement cannot be held against the non-resident investment fund. Furthermore, the Dutch national court should determine the main objective of the re-distribution requirement under Dutch national law: (1) taxation of shareholders / participants or (2) providing income / cashflow to the shareholders / participants of the fund. Should it be ruled that the re-distribution requirement aims at taxing the shareholders / participants (within a limited period of time), this could constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital in case the non-resident fund is compared to a FBI, whereas the non-resident fund is not allowed to receive a refund even though its shareholders / participants are equally taxed compared to the shareholders of a FBI.

Taxand’s take

This ECJ ruling is one in a series of rulings and should shed light on the refund claims made by numerous investment funds in EU jurisdictions. For the Dutch practice, this ruling specifically is interesting and may be considered as yet another step towards a clear precedent. The Dutch re-distribution requirement originally has been introduced to justify that Dutch FBI’s are exempt from Dutch corporate taxation. The requirement however has lost its relevance (at least for individual investors) upon introducing a taxation based upon a fictitious return on investment per FY2001. Per 2001, the factual return on investment no longer is relevant for a Dutch individual’s annual tax liability. The clear ECJ’s instruction for a Dutch court ruling may create an Escher-like puzzle to solve for the judges assigned to the case.

Please contact Gertjan Hesselberth or Timothy Wells for further information on Dutch dividend withholding tax refund cases.

Köln-Aktienfonds Deka has requested a refund of Dutch dividend withholding tax withheld on dividend that it has received from its Dutch (portfolio) investments, arguing that a Dutch fund (“FBI”) was allowed receiving such refund under Dutch law (until 2007). Key question is whether Köln-Aktiënfonds Deka can be compared to a FBI under EU law. To meet the FBI regime, Dutch law has embedded various requirements regarding among others the quality and quantity of the shareholders in a FBI and the re-distribution requirement. Köln-Aktienfonds Deka argued that it does not have access to its shareholders information. It furthermore argued that, to the extent that annual earnings are not distributed, they are deemed to be distributed and taxed at the level of its shareholders / participants under specific German law.

In short, the ECJ ruled that the Dutch national court should determine whether or not resident and non-resident investment funds are subject to the same administrative burden for providing information of their shareholders / participants. If non-resident investment funds are subject to an excessive administrative burden, the shareholders requirement cannot be held against the non-resident investment fund. Furthermore, the Dutch national court should determine the main objective of the re-distribution requirement under Dutch national law: (1) taxation of shareholders / participants or (2) providing income / cashflow to the shareholders / participants of the fund. Should it be ruled that the re-distribution requirement aims at taxing the shareholders / participants (within a limited period of time), this could constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital in case the non-resident fund is compared to a FBI, whereas the non-resident fund is not allowed to receive a refund even though its shareholders / participants are equally taxed compared to the shareholders of a FBI.

Taxand’s take

This ECJ ruling is one in a series of rulings and should shed light on the refund claims made by numerous investment funds in EU jurisdictions. For the Dutch practice, this ruling specifically is interesting and may be considered as yet another step towards a clear precedent. The Dutch re-distribution requirement originally has been introduced to justify that Dutch FBI’s are exempt from Dutch corporate taxation. The requirement however has lost its relevance (at least for individual investors) upon introducing a taxation based upon a fictitious return on investment per FY2001. Per 2001, the factual return on investment no longer is relevant for a Dutch individual’s annual tax liability. The clear ECJ’s instruction for a Dutch court ruling may create an Escher-like puzzle to solve for the judges assigned to the case.

Please contact Gertjan Hesselberth or Timothy Wells for further information on Dutch dividend withholding tax refund cases.

One of the measures of the MLI is the Mutual Agreement Procedure (hereinafter: MAP) tiebreaker between treaty partners to determine the domicile of dual resident companies. Based on the MAP-tiebreaker a dual resident company can file a request to start a MAP at the competent authority of one of the tax treaty jurisdictions. The request to start a MAP should be filed within the period indicated in the relevant tax treaty (this is usually three years after the first notification that the treaty benefits will be denied due to the dual residency).

In principle the Netherlands aims to provide clarity on the outcome within six months after the request is filed. In case your company is a dual resident entity and the entity has previously received approval on its residency from both tax treaty jurisdictions, this approval may be grandfathered by the new decree. Both, the aim to provide clarity within six months and the grandfathering, are subject to the approval of the foreign tax authorities and can therefore not be granted by the Dutch tax authorities.

Please contact Gerriët Nagelhout or Timothy Wells for the exact conditions of the grandfathering or the MAP-decree in general.

The list now consists of Anguilla, Bahama’s, Bahrein, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Cayman, Turkmenistan, Turks- and Caicos Islands, Vanuatu and the United Arab Emirates. The list is relevant for three Dutch measures, being 1) the CFC rules which have been introduced as per 1 January 2019, 2) the as per 1 July 2019 renewed ruling practice and 3) the conditional withholding tax on interest and royalty’s which will be introduced as per 1 January 2021. These measures are also applicable in relation to the countries on the EU-list.

With the delisting of Belize, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi-Arabia of the list of low tax jurisdictions and the Marshall Islands of the EU-list, the CFC-rules and the conditional withholding tax are no longer applicable to entities located in these jurisdictions. Furthermore, in case certain other conditions are met, transactions with these jurisdictions are eligible again for concluding an Advance Tax Ruling or an Advance Pricing Agreement.

For further information please contact Gerriët Nagelhout.

• Het belastbaar loon dient op jaarbasis meer dan EUR 38.347 (EUR 37.743 in 2019) te bedragen.
• Voor werknemers met een mastertitel, die tevens jonger zijn dan 30 jaar, dient het belastbaar loon op jaarbasis meer dan EUR 29.149 ( EUR 28.690 in 2019) te bedragen.

De belastingdienst controleert aan het eind van het jaar via de loonadministratie of alle werknemers met een 30%-regeling aan de salarisnorm hebben voldaan. Zo niet, dan zal er met terugwerkende kracht worden gecorrigeerd. Heeft u deze check al gedaan?

Voor meer informatie kunt u contact opnemen met Sander Michaël en Chris van Wijngaarden.

Deze meldingsplicht vloeit voort uit de Wet arbeidsvoorwaarden gedetacheerde werknemers in de Europese Unie (WagwEU). Tot de EER behoren alle EU-lidstaten, Noorwegen, Liechtenstein en IJsland. In geval van niet-naleving kunnen boetes worden opgelegd. Vanaf 1 februari 2020 kunnen de tijdelijke opdrachten reeds gemeld worden die op of na 1 maart 2020 zullen starten. Tijdelijke opdrachten die gestart zijn vóór 1 maart 2020 hoeven niet gemeld te worden.

Voor meer informatie kunt u contact opnemen met Sander Michaël of Annette van Scherpenzeel.

Discover more: “Comments on the Public Consultation Document Secretariat Proposal for the Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (“GloBE”) – under Pillar Two published on 8 November 2019”

For more information, please contact Jimmie van der Zwaan.