State Secretary of Finance Wiebes, in a 133-page Note following the Report, answered the questions raised in the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Finance on the 2015 Tax Plan Bill (see also: https://vwg.nl/nieuws/wkr-2015-ontwikkelingen-1/). These include questions on the working expenses scheme (WKR) as it is to apply to all withholding agents (employers) from 1 January 2015.
Because that is one of the things Wiebes emphasises: the WKR is really meant to apply to everyone from 1 January next. The shift of the settlement moment to the first tax return period after the end of the calendar year means, according to the State Secretary, that withholding agents will actually not (really) have to deal with the WKR until early 2016. In our opinion, a somewhat sought-after argument: after all, every careful entrepreneur wants to know in good time whether he/she will be faced with an additional expense of 80% at the beginning of 2016 when the free allowance in the WKR is exceeded. And for that, it is imperative to clarify as soon as possible exactly how the WKR will be framed. Wiebes also reports that the Tax and Customs Administration has launched an extensive information campaign, including via the special internet portal: www.belastingdienst.nl/wkr.
Wiebes has found that unwanted use is being made of the WKR. Large companies in particular seem to want to use the headroom in the ERS to get (hefty?) bonuses untaxed to their employees. There are even signs that people are trying to circumvent the Top Income Support Act in this way. Although the State Secretary reported not so long ago that he suspected that this would not be such a big deal, he has now announced that he wants to combat this undesired use by tightening the customary use criterion already applied in the WKR since 2011. How this is to be done, he does not yet make clear. That will follow as soon as possible. To what extent small and medium-sized enterprises will be sucked into this, therefore, is not yet clear. The minister did reiterate that the customary use criterion is meant to counter excesses.
However, there is a clear answer (as expected) with regard to the questions on volunteers. As long as a volunteer only receives allowances and benefits in kind with a combined value of € 150 per month and € 1,500 per year, the legal relationship does not qualify as an employment relationship and the volunteer fee obviously does not constitute salary (the volunteer fee is then obviously not part of the wage bill on which the free allowance of 1.2% is calculated). If the aforementioned amounts are exceeded, it must be assessed whether there is (pay from) an employment relationship.
LET so ON: a volunteer who receives allowances and benefits in kind of up to €1,500 (and €100 per month) in a calendar year and who receives a Christmas package in December, for example, may NOT receive that Christmas package in the provider's free space (and exceeds the standards with the Christmas package, even rendering the volunteer scheme inapplicable!).
The new necessity criterion is not fleshed out much more concretely in the Note. However, the State Secretary does announce that he will appeal in cassation against the Amsterdam Court of Appeal's decision of 25 September 2014. In that ruling, in a case that played under the transitional regime, the Court of Appeal qualified an Ipad as a means of communication, not a computer.
Attached to the memorandum is the draft implementing regulation, which regulates the new targeted exemption for workplace facilities. This includes, on the one hand, working conditions provisions that are wholly or partly used or consumed at the workplace and, on the other hand, equipment that is also used or consumed elsewhere and is used (almost) entirely for business purposes. These items are currently included under nil valuations, which means that only benefits in kind and not allowances can remain outside payroll taxes. In addition, occupational health and safety provisions, which do not take place at the workplace, are also included under the targeted exemption.
The request to maintain the specific exemption for the company bicycle will not be honoured. Bicycle plans will therefore really have to find their place within the free space (1.2% of the wage bill). Other requests to keep specific items (parking elsewhere, company outings outside the workplace, work clothes and shoes in sports, etc.) out of the free space after all are rejected.
The criterion for the group scheme, an interest of 95% or more, concerns only legal and beneficial ownership. This is based on the nominal paid-up capital and does not test the distribution of voting rights. The aim here is to apply a simple criterion.
The State Secretary confirmed that the joint and several liability arising from the application of the group scheme is limited to the tax due under the WKR (i.e. the 80% final levy on the amount by which the free margin of 1.2% of the wage bill is exceeded).