The government has announced that the Benefits Agency will not comply with the DBA Act. The fines and surcharges imposed on intermediaries of bogus self-employed workers will be paid from taxpayers' money. Parliamentary questions have been raised about this. We summarise some of the questions and answers.
Question 1
What is the reason for the cabinet's decision to continue working with bogus self-employed persons at the Uitvoeringsorganisatie Herstel Toeslagen (UHT) even after 1 January 2025 despite the fact that the same cabinet wants the rest of the Netherlands to stop working with bogus self-employed persons? Why has this cabinet failed to comply with the law by 1 January 2025? What reasons does the cabinet have for granting itself this exemption position? Do these reasons also apply to market parties such as, for example, GP surgeries or childcare organisations?
Answer 1
Firstly, we regret the need to continue working with potentially sham self-employed persons in the childcare allowance recovery operation even after 1-1-2025. This is not in line with applicable laws and regulations. The Ministry of Finance has tried to meet its best efforts obligation to have no potentially bogus self-employed persons working by 1 January. In order to ensure that the progress and handling of the recovery operation is not impeded and to fulfil the promises made to those affected, society and politicians, potentially bogus self-employed persons will be deployed for the recovery operation in 2025, and possibly also in 2026. This does not alter the fact that continuous efforts will be made within the recovery operation to reduce the number of potential false self-employed as soon as possible to zero. We do want to emphasise that there is no exception for the childcare allowance recovery operation. Like all employers, the government must adjust the organisation of work where necessary so that work is done in a manner appropriate to labour law. In doing so, regular labour law and tax rules apply.
Question 3
Does the government find it just and credible to not make itself comply with the law while pursuing the enforcement strategy to make other parties comply? If so, can the government substantiate this in detail? If not, why has a different enforcement strategy not been considered?
Answer 3
The government does not consider it exemplary behaviour for government organisations to act in violation of the law. Every effort will therefore be made to be compliant by 1 January 2025, and if this really fails as soon as possible. The government fully realises that there should be a task and example role here and that this picture does not promote market players' trust in the government. At the same time, the government believes that steps towards resuming full enforcement are necessary. This includes the possibility of enforcement actions at the Ministry of Finance itself.
Question 5
Does the government realise that the government can continue to pay its self-imposed fines and surcharges with taxpayers' money indefinitely but that other organisations, companies and entrepreneurs go bankrupt when they are given fines and at the same time continue to fail to comply with the law? How much money has been earmarked for 2025 to pay fines and surcharges issued in light of the DBA Act?
Answer 5
Maintaining the premise that no potentially bogus self-employed persons should be employed in the childcare allowance recovery operation by 1 January 2025 is at the expense of achieving the Cabinet's objectives as well as at the expense of actually helping aggrieved parents. In that consideration, the Benefits Agency has come to the aforementioned offer to brokers who potentially supply bogus self-employed persons for the childcare benefit recovery operation to pay the fines and additional employee insurance contributions. This agreement entails that if enforcement by the Tax and Customs Administration at these brokers results in fines and additional employee insurance contributions as a result of demonstrable sham self-employment by such self-employed persons, that the Benefits Agency is willing to reimburse these costs. Nevertheless, no estimate has been budgeted for paying fines and surcharges for 2025. Brokers may weigh up not wanting to run this risk and be compliant with the DBA Act as of now. This may affect the capacity available for the recovery operation. Maintaining the available capacity has ongoing attention to avoid delays in the recovery operation.
Question 6
How many bogus self-employed persons (according to the government's own definition) are working for the Tax and Customs Administration as of 1 January 2025? How many of them are working for the Supplementary Benefits Service? How many of them are working for the UHT?
Answer 6
Within the Ministry of Finance, the Tax and Customs Administration and the Benefits Agency are separate units. The number of potentially bogus self-employed persons as of 1 January at the Tax and Customs Administration is 0. For the childcare allowance recovery operation, there are over 700 potentially bogus self-employed persons working as of 30 November, 655 of whom are employed at UHT. The remaining potential false self-employed are working at supplementary claims schemes at the Actual Damages Commission and the Directorate General Recovery programme. The exact number of potential sham self-employed as of 1 January 2025 is not known at this time. For the sake of completeness, it is noted that the other recovery schemes implemented through market parties and municipalities may also involve the use of potential pseudo self-employed persons. Possible numbers of these are not known.
Note: Nothing has been entered in the budget for fines and after-taxes. A simple explanation could be that this would be cloak-and-dagger anyway. The cabinet gives text in answer 5, but no real explanation.
EN 
NL 
ES 