If a delivery van is used on a continuous basis and in rotation by several employees, the employer may settle the additional tax liability for the employees’ private use by paying €300 in payroll tax each year (final levy).
Continuous and varied
But what exactly does the condition “continuous and varied” mean? This is the subject of an ruling which the Court of Appeal in The Hague handed down at the end of 2019. This case concerns a construction firm with between 20 and 30 employees. The contractor pays €300 for three delivery vans under the final levy scheme.
These vans are made available to two permanent employees. These employees work at different building sites. They decide amongst themselves who drives the van and when. The employees are permitted to use the van for private journeys as well. However, each employee is limited to no more than 500 kilometres per year for such use. Occasionally, a third employee drives the van.
Statement by the Tax and Customs Administration
The Tax and Customs Administration takes the view that there is no question of continuous and alternating use. The employer can determine which employee uses the van in turn, as they can establish which employee takes the van home on any given evening (usually this is the employee who lives furthest away from the job currently being carried out).
Furthermore, the Tax and Customs Administration argues that the final levy scheme does not apply because employees are able to drive more than 500 kilometres for private purposes using the delivery van. The contractor does not carry out any checks in this regard, and the vehicles are not parked on the employer’s premises in the evenings.
Court
The Court swiftly dismissed the Tax and Customs Administration’s second argument: these circumstances are not laid down in the law as conditions for the application of the final levy scheme.
With regard to the first argument, the Court concludes from the established facts that it is not possible to identify a single employee to whom the van has been made available. It cannot be determined which employee has the opportunity to use the van for private purposes at any given time. Furthermore, the Court considers it significant that, on occasion, a third employee makes use of the van.
Conclusion
The Court therefore rules that the final levy scheme was correctly applied. The judgment does, however, indicate that a critical assessment must be made as to whether the delivery van is genuinely made available to several employees on a continuous and rotating basis.
PLEASE NOTE: the final levy scheme does not apply to passenger cars.