No business? Then no facilities either

A yoga teacher registered with the Chamber of Commerce in February 2020. In her tax return, she reported a business loss. This amount is calculated as turnover of €203, less the self-employed person’s allowance and the start-up allowance, and plus the SME profit exemption. She does not list any costs or business assets on the balance sheet.

Correction by the inspector

The inspector classifies the turnover of €203 as income from other activities and does not apply the business relief schemes. The woman lodges an objection, but this is declared unfounded. The court also declares her appeal unfounded.

Business profit

A business requires a sustainable organisation of labour and capital that participates in economic life with the aim of making a profit. It is crucial that this profit must also be reasonably foreseeable. When assessing this, factors such as the sustainability and scope of the activities, the time available, entrepreneurial risk, the scale of income and investments, the number of clients and the business’s public profile are taken into account.

No objective profit forecast

The teacher has not demonstrated that she runs a business. The turnover (of €203) is negligible and no costs or investments have been reported. Her timesheets consist of rounded figures and many activities are described as voluntary work. There is no discernible business plan or realistic objective. Nor do the tax returns for subsequent years indicate any reasonable prospect of profit. Consequently, the woman is not eligible for the tax reliefs available to self-employed persons, such as the self-employed person’s allowance.

Hour Criterium

The woman claims that the inspector has breached the duty of care, amongst other things by failing to draw her attention to the relaxed hours criterion and by issuing the decision on her objection too quickly. However, the inspector did not act negligently. The hours criterion is not relevant if there is no business. Furthermore, the woman had sufficient time to provide additional information, but failed to do so.

Source: Amsterdam Court of Appeal | case law | ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1134 | 13 April 2026
Table of contents