Just because principals are related to each other does not mean they should be considered one principal

The interested party filed his 2017 income tax return for income tax purposes, classifying his income as profit from business (wuo). According to the inspector, this was income from other activities (row).

For previous years, 2010-2013, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that this was fictitious employment. In 2014, the interested party applied for and received a VAR-wuo. As for 2014, the 2015 and 2016 returns, in which the interested party declared WUO , were followed.

In 2017, the interested party has three clients, has concluded with them a model contract of assignment approved by the Tax Authorities, in which a (fictitious) employment is excluded. The District Court of Gelderland ruled that in 2017 there was wuo, as the work was sustainable, of large scale (full-time) and the income was also of large scale.

According to the court, these elements weigh heavily in assessing the difference between profit from business and income from other activities at issue here. Moreover, there are three clients involved. The fact that these three clients are affiliated does not matter. The interested party has in fact made it plausible that there are different companies that perform different activities and that he has performed different work for them. (Appeal granted).

Source: Sdu/NDFR