The Uber Precedent in Determining Bogus Self-Employment

In connection with new rules for ZZP and the tax authority's increased activity in audits and reclassifying some entrepreneurs as employees, we are receiving more and more questions from our ZZP clients who want to understand their tax-legal circumstances.

We have already examined the criteria in detail and shared a link to a questionnaire that helps provide orientation.

Today, we would like to share the example of the Uber court case, which demonstrates that the number of clients alone is not determinative for whether ZZP status is genuine or bogus.

In late January, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected the demands of the FNV trade union, which wanted all Uber drivers or certain groups of them to be recognized as employees. The court ruled that a general classification cannot be given for all drivers at once, and that six drivers who participated in the case on Uber's side should be considered self-employed entrepreneurs.

The court took into account that these drivers:

• invested in their own vehicles and their maintenance
• determined their own working hours
• could accept or reject rides
• bore entrepreneurial risks (liability, risk of incapacity, etc.)

The court did not rule out that other Uber drivers may work under an employment contract, but in this case, there was no way to establish this, so the collective claim was dismissed.

Therefore, if you as an entrepreneur have only one client, we advise you to find others for balance and to strengthen your position. But what makes you an entrepreneur is your independence in making business decisions and your own responsibility.