

Published: 01-02-2012
Still an undertaking despite working for only one client
Tax entrepreneurship
At our tax consultancy firm I Amsterdam we are regularly asked by clients if an person with only one or a limited number of clients can still be considered to be a business undertaking. It seems that new businesses and the self-employed especially find it difficult to get a handle on the tax criteria concerning entrepreneurship. As an entrepreneur you would always start with one client to see how the enterprise will go. If there remains only one client for a lengthy period of time then it might not be considered a business undertaking. Considering whether or not there is an undertaking with only one client depends on all the facts and circumstances. All relevant factors must be taken into account before the conclusion is made. For the tax authorities the conclusion will not always be shared and often a lengthy discussion ensues regarding this matter.
Proceedings
If your discussion with the tax authorities does not go anywhere then this could result in legal proceedings. A recent Breda Court case illustrated a good example. In the ruling the Breda Court touches on the relevant criteria surrounding the concept of entrepreneurship.
Case
To give you a good idea here is a short summary of the case and the main points covered by the ruling:
X worked until August 10, 2007 for Woningbouw. In July 2007 he registered at the Chamber of Commerce and registered himself as an entrepreneur with the tax office. The activities of his business consist of installing floors and making walls etc. (concrete masonry). Until February 1, 2008 X had worked on an assignment for Woningbouw and after February 1, 2008 he had – until 2009 – worked for A. The tax inspector did not consider X to be an entrepreneur for 2008. However the Breda Court ruled that X is indeed an entrepreneur. The court considered it pertinent that X has outwardly presented himself as self-employed.
More elements for consideration
According to the court there is an organization of labour and capital with the aim of making profit. The court points out that in 2008 and 2009 profit is made. The court found that X also managed to demonstrate that he possessed sufficient independence from the client. Furthermore, the court found it likely that X had run a risk in operating his business. The fact that X mainly worked for one client in 2008 – given that the nature of the work entails that there are often long term assignments – is of no relevance according to the court. The court further pointed out that in 2008 X tried to acquire new clients, which – seen by the revenue growth in 2009 – was successful. The inspector had then wrongly classified X by not classing him as an entrepreneur.
Keep up to date with the latest tax developments in the Netherlands.
Follow us on twitter or become a fan of our Facebook page.
06-04-2012
28-02-2012
23-02-2012
11-01-2012
19-10-2011
28-07-2011
20-06-2011
06-06-2011
09-05-2011
23-03-2011
07-05-2012
27-04-2012
24-04-2012
11-04-2012
15-03-2012
14-03-2012
01-03-2012
29-02-2012
13-02-2012
02-02-2012
01-02-2012
31-01-2012
27-01-2012
20-01-2012
12-01-2012
05-01-2012
16-12-2011
14-12-2011
08-12-2011
02-12-2011
23-11-2011
16-11-2011
13-11-2011
10-11-2011
19-10-2011
13-10-2011
21-09-2011
10-09-2011
08-09-2011
05-09-2011
30-08-2011
26-08-2011
25-08-2011
20-08-2011
18-08-2011
01-08-2011
28-07-2011
14-07-2011
12-07-2011
04-07-2011
20-06-2011
27-05-2011
19-05-2011
17-05-2011
13-05-2011
09-05-2011
07-05-2011
06-05-2011
04-05-2011
03-05-2011