Wolt-kurérpartner anset for lønmodtager og ikke selvstændig

Journalnr. 25-0006863 Klagepunkt Skattestyrelsens afgørelse Klagerens opfattelse Landsskatterettens afgørelse Retlig kvalifikation Lønmodtager Selvstændig erhvervsdrivende Lønmodtager A-indkomst 537.304 kr. 0 kr. Nedsættes til 501.976 kr. Overskud af virksomhed 0 kr. 241.100 kr. Stadfæstelse Befordringsfradrag 50.198 kr. 0 kr. Stadfæstelse Faktiske oplysninger Det fremgår af Det Centrale Virksomhedsregister, CVR, at klageren er registeret med enkeltmandsvirksomheden benævnt [virksomhed1], CVR nr. [...1]. Virksomheden blev registreret den 1. oktober 2021 og med branchekoden ”522500 Serviceydelser i forbindelse med logistik”. Det fremgår, at virksomheden i perioden 1. oktober 2021-31. december 2024 var registreret med branchekoden ”522990 Andre tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med transport”. Der fremgår ingen oplysninger om ansatte. Det fremgår af klagerens årsopgørelse nr. 1 for indkomståret 2022, udskrevet den 19. april 2023, at klageren har angivet et overskud af virksomhed på 241.100 kr. Det fremgår endvidere, at klageren har haft en lønindkomst på 6.342 kr. Det fremgår af den påklagede afgørelse, at der for perioden 1. januar 2022-31. december 2022 samlet er indberettet 125.498 kr. i salgsmoms og 22.799 kr. i købsmoms. Skattestyrelsen har oplyst, at klageren har en restance på 12.609 kr. hos Gældsstyrelsen for ikke afregnet moms for perioden 1. oktober 2022-31. december 2022. Klageren har for indkomståret 2022 udført arbejde som kurérpartner for [virksomhed2] ApS (herefter [virksomhed2]) og optjent et vederlag ved at bringe mad og varer ud fra restauranter og andre udbydere fra [virksomhed2]s platform til [virksomhed2]s kunder. Det fremgår af den påklagede afgørelse, at [virksomhed2] alene afholder alle udgifter forbundet med partner app’en, som benyttes i forbindelse med kurérernes arbejdsudførelse. [virksomhed2] har udstedt afregningsbilag til klageren til brug for opgørelsen af klagerens vederlag optjent som kurérpartner. Af data fra [virksomhed2] fremgår, at klageren har modtaget følgende udbetalinger i 2022: Periode Dispositionsdato Vederlag eks. moms Moms 16.12.21-31.12.21 10. januar 2022 11.015,00 kr. -* 01.01.22-15.01.22 25. januar 2022 22.495,00 kr. 5.562,50 kr. 16.01.22-31.01.22 10. februar 2022 13.470,00 kr. 3.341,25 kr. 01.02.22-15.02.22 25. februar 2022 20.215,00 kr. 5.016,25 kr. 16.02.22-28.02.22 10. marts 2022 19.420,00 kr. 4.817,50 kr. 01.03.22-15.03.22 25. februar 2022 24.688,00 kr. 6.138,75 kr. 16.03.22-31.03.22 10. april 2022 22.425,00 kr. 5.563,75 kr. 01.04.22-15.04.22 25. april 2022 29.585,00 kr. 7.361,25 kr. 16.04.22-30.04.22 10. maj 2022 17.540,00 kr. 4.357,50 kr. 01.05.22-15.05.22 25. maj 2022 26.338,00 kr. 6.543,75 kr. 16.05.22-31.05.22 10. juni 2022 17.770,00 kr. 4.395,00 kr. 01.06.22-15.06.22 25. juni 2022 15.145,00 kr. 3.771,25 kr. 16.06.22-30.06.22 10. juli 2022 21.490,00 kr. 5.285,00 kr. 01.07.22-15.07.22 25. juli 2022 22.680,00 kr. 5.600,00 kr. 16.07.22-31.07.22 10. august 2022 23.730,00 kr. 5.836,25 kr. 01.08.22-15.08.22 25. august 2022 17.910,00 kr. 4.405,00 kr. 16.08.22-31.08.22 10. september 2022 25.942,00 kr. 6.396,25 kr. 01.09.22-15.09.22 25. september 2022 27.359,00 kr. 6.753,75 kr. 16.09.22-30.09.22 10. oktober 2022 20.825,00 kr. 5.166,25 kr. 01.10.22-15.10.22 25. oktober 2022 21.230,00 kr. 5.235,00 kr. 16.10.22-31.10.22 10. november 2022 24.205,00 kr. 5.948,75 kr. 01.11.22-15.11.22 25. november 2022 17.629,00 kr. 4.370,00 kr. 16.11.22-30.11.22 10. december 2022 18.025,00 kr. 4.448,75 kr. 01.12.22-15.12.22 25. december 2022 20.845,00 kr. 5.128,75 kr. 16.12.22-31.12.22 10. januar 2023 -* 3.976,25 kr. I alt (afrundet) 501.976 kr. 125.418 kr. Der fremgår ikke oplysninger om, at klageren i indkomståret 2022 har haft andre hvervgivere end [virksomhed2]. Skattestyrelsen har anset klageren for at være lønmodtager af vederlaget fra [virksomhed2]. Skattestyrelsen har som konsekvens heraf nedsat klagerens overskud af virksomhed fra 241.100 kr. til 0 kr. Skattestyrelsen har opgjort klagerens A-indkomst fra [virksomhed2] i indkomståret 2022 til 537.304 kr. Beløbet er opgjort således: Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (CVR)(eks. moms, inkl. eventuelle drikkepenge) 501.976 kr. Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (indberettet af [virksomhed2] i rubrik 12) 0 kr. Yderligere skattepligtig indtægt (manglende afregnet moms) 35.328 kr. Samlet vederlag fra [virksomhed2] 537.304 kr. Oplyst beløb rubrik 11 vedrørende [virksomhed2]-vederlag 0 kr. Ændringsbeløb i rubrik 11, lønindkomst mv. 537.304 kr. Skattestyrelsen har indrømmet klageren et skønsmæssigt fradrag for befordring på 10 % af det opnåede vederlag ekskl. moms, svarende til 50.198 kr. Skønnet er foretaget på baggrund af data fra [virksomhed2] om en kurérpartners gennemsnitlige timeløn, antal kørte kilometer og antal arbejdsdage, svarende til 175 kr., 6.000 km og 105 dage. Af standardkontraktgrundlaget, benævnt ”Service Agreement”, fra [virksomhed2] dateret den 2. november 2020 fremgår: ”Background and.. (…) (C) (…) The Courier has no employment relationship with [virksomhed2], [virksomhed2] has no right to supervise the Courier´s work and the Courier may freely act also with other mandator/contractors (…) (…) COURIER’S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Courier´s services: Upon commencement of service, the Courier is granted access to the Platform in which the Courier will be able to inform when he/she is available for deliveries, confirm deliveries, etc. The Courier may select when he/she is available for doing deliveries of [virksomhed2] orders made by users. The Courier confirms availability each time by coming online on the Platform. [virksomhed2] may also offer the Courier a possibility to prebook availabilities to carry out deliveries. When the Courier has chosen to be available for deliveries, [virksomhed2] will inform the Courier about delivery service requests electronically. The Courier is not guaranteed a specific quantity of deliveries, at the quantity is conditional on how much [virksomhed2]s order services are used and how many [virksomhed2] orders the Courier wishes to deliver. Upon commencement of the services, the Courier is offered the possibility to participate in a “Partner Introduction”, where the Courier will be introduced to the Platform, etc. Participation in the Partner Introduction is non-mandatory and the Courier will not receive any remuneration for participating in the Partner Introduction. To ensure optimal quality in the delivery of food orders to the users, [virksomhed2] shall be entitled to allocate delivery orders or pre-booked availabilities to couriers, at [virksomhed2]s absolute discretion based on the performance of their services. Accordingly, [virksomhed2] guarantees no delivery orders to the Courier, even if the Courier has reported availability. The Courier shall be allowed to carry on other business and [virksomhed2] shall not set any non-competition obligations for the Courier. (…) The Couriers obligations and responsibilities: The Courier shall be liable for the delivery being performed appropriately and complying with any applicable regulations. The Courier shall take care of procurement of work equipment apart from a heating bag which [virksomhed2] provides to the Courier. The Courier shall own or otherwise possess a car, a scooter or a bicycle which is used for deliveries and is responsible for all expenses resulting from it (fuel, insurance, maintenance expenses etc.). The Courier shall be liable for any costs related to delivery operations. [virksomhed2] shall not reimburse any expenses or compensate for any damages relating to deliveries. The Courier is obliged to take care of any applicable taxes and social security obligations relating to its operations hence these are of no concern to [virksomhed2]. If found necessary by the Courier, the Courier should consult with an accountant in regards to whether the Courier should conduct the business with [virksomhed2] through a personal registered company, as a fee recipient (in Danish: “honorarmodtager”) or in any other way which fulfills the Couriers legal obligation when carrying out the services. (…) The Courier is obliged to hold a valid work and residence permit in case that the Courier has a nationality which requires such permit in order to carry out the services in Denmark. Upon commencement of the service, the Courier must provide [virksomhed2] with a copy of the work and residence permit. The Courier is obligated to instantly inform [virksomhed2], if the Courier for any reason whatsoever no longer holds a valid work and residence permit, as this may cause this Agreement to expire without further notice. . The Courier (i) shall defend or settle anu claim, demand, action or proceeding brought by a third party (“Claim”) against [virksomhed2] to the extent that the Claim arises out of the Couriers breach, whether by an act or omission, of any of the Courier’s obligations and responsibilities in this Agreement and (ii) indemnify and hold harmless [virksomhed2] of e.g. any damages, judgements and expenses (non-exhaustive) arising out of any Claim against [virksomhed2]. The Courier is not entitled to settle any Claim without the prior written consent of [virksomhed2]. REMUNERATION The Courier bears the financial risk for the Courier’s service and performance in respect of the deliveries, hence [virksomhed2] shall only pay the Courier for successfully conducted services/deliveries remuneration according to the respective remuneration matrix (Appendix 1). Remuneration matrix may by unilaterally amended by [virksomhed2], in which case the Courier may unilaterally decide whether or not to accept services in accordance with this Agreement. (…) The remuneration must be paid to a bank account pointed out by the Courier twice a month. TERM AND TERMINATION The agreement comes into effect on the date of signing. The Agreement will remain in effect until further notice with mutual one (1) day’s notice. The termination must be made in writing. [virksomhed2] will be entitled to terminate the Agreement in its sole discretion, including but not limited to the following situations: if the Couriers level for the services provided has proven not to be adequate if the Couriers level for the services provided has proven not to live up the delivery times promised to the [virksomhed2] customers via the Platform Notwithstanding clause 3.1, [virksomhed2] has the right to terminate the Agreement with immediate effect if the quality of the Courier’s performance decreases and the customer feedback or ratings are negative. (…)” Af appendix 1 til kontrakten fremgår: ”1. Remuneration per delivery Remuneration per delivery is 40 DKK, on top of which remuneration per delivery distance is 0 DKK for deliveries under or equal to 1.5 km 10 DKK for each started 0.5 km after the first 1.5 km The distance is calculated based on the straight-line distance between the delivery pick-up and drop-off locations one way and not based on the distance on the roads. (…)” Vedlagt til kontrakten er også en oversigt over eventuelt udleveret udstyr. Det fremgår, at en kurér kan få udleveret en varmetaske til enten bil eller cykel. Det fremgår, at varmetaskerne har en værdi af 1.100 kr., og at udstyret skal leveres retur, samt at den enkelte kurér hæfter for varmetaskens værdi, hvis varmetasken går i stykker eller bliver væk. Skattestyrelsens afgørelse Skattestyrelsen har anset klageren for at være i et lønmodtagerforhold hos [virksomhed2] ApS og har på baggrund heraf forhøjet klagerens A-indkomst med 537.304 kr. og nedsat overskud af virksomhed til 0 kr. for indkomståret 2022. Skattestyrelsen har endvidere skønsmæssigt ansat klagerens befordringsfradrag til 50.198 kr. for indkomståret 2022. Skattestyrelsen har som begrundelse bl.a. anført: ”(…) Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (…) 1.3. Vores begrundelse og bemærkninger Det beror på en samlet konkret vurdering, om en skattepligtig person anses for lønmodtager eller selvstændig erhvervsdrivende. Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er foretaget på de faktiske forhold, der gjorde sig gældende på [virksomhed2]s platform i 2022, og er vurderet på baggrund af de kriterier, der er angivet i punkt 3.1.1 i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven. Som udgangspunkt anses en person for lønmodtager, hvis vedkommende modtager vederlag for personligt arbejde i tjenesteforhold efter hvervgiverens anvisninger og for dennes regning og risiko. Selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed er kendetegnet ved, at der for egen regning og risiko udøves en virksomhed af økonomisk karakter med det formål at opnå et overskud. I tvivlstilfælde må afgrænsningen ske på grundlag af en samlet bedømmelse af forholdet mellem hvervgiver og hvervtager. Ved vurderingen af om der er tale om et tjenesteforhold, kan der ifølge punkt 3.1.1 i cirkulæret om personskatteloven lægges vægt på, hvorvidt: hvervgiveren har en almindelig adgang til at fastsætte generelle eller konkrete instrukser for arbejdets udførelse, herunder tilsyn og kontrol, indkomstmodtageren udelukkende eller i overvejende grad har samme hvervgiver, der mellem hvervgiveren og indkomstmodtageren er indgået aftale om løbende arbejdsydelse, indkomstmodtageren har arbejdstid fastsat af hvervgiveren, indkomstmodtageren har ret til opsigelsesvarsel, vederlaget er beregnet, som det er almindeligt i tjenesteforhold (timeløn, ugeløn, månedsløn, provision, akkord m.v.), vederlaget udbetales periodisk, hvervgiveren afholder udgifterne i forbindelse med udførelsen af arbejdet, vederlaget i overvejende grad er nettoindkomst for indkomstmodtageren, indkomstmodtageren anses for lønmodtager ved praktisering af ferieloven, lov om arbejdsløshedsforsikring, funktionærloven, lov om arbejdsskadeforsikring og lov om arbejdsmiljø. I henhold til cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 til Personskatteloven er ingen af ovennævnte kriterier, der taler henholdsvis for tjenesteforhold og selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, i sig selv afgørende. De anførte momenter har endvidere ikke lige stor betydning i alle situationer, se den juridiske vejledning afsnit C.C.1.2 Selvstændigt erhvervsdrivende i modsætning til lønmodtager og honorarmodtager. I praksis kan det være således, at visse sider af forholdet mellem hvervgiver og indkomstmodtager taler for at statuere tjenesteforhold, mens andre sider taler for, at der foreligger selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed. I sådanne tilfælde må afgørelsen bero på en samlet vurdering: Selvstændig virksomhed Det er ud fra en samlet vurdering Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at der er en overvægt af kriterier der taler imod, at det vederlag, du har erhvervet ved at udføre aktiviteter for [virksomhed2], kan anses for at være optjent som led i en selvstændig virksomhed. Der er lagt vægt på, at du som kurerpartner reelt arbejder for [virksomhed2]s regning og risiko og der derved savnes de grundlæggende kendetegn, der er ved en selvstændig virksomhed, samt at det er [virksomhed2], der afholder alle udgifter til Partner App’en, som er nødvendig for at udføre opgaver, og dermed det vigtigste værktøj. Dette medfører, at der som udgangspunkt er tale om en nettoindkomst for dig, som afregnes periodisk efter en metode, der er sædvanlig for lønmodtagerforhold, i et løbende aftaleforhold. I forhold til din risiko som kurerpartner er der lagt til grund, at den potentielle risiko, der fremgår af kontraktgrundlaget i forbindelse med ødelagte varer og erstatningskrav fra kunder, ikke er håndhævet aktivt, og at risikoen derfor ikke er reel. I det omfang kravet om erstatning rent faktisk håndhæves (hvilket [virksomhed2] har oplyst sker efter juni 2022), er det Skattestyrelsens opfattelse at, de krav der i givet fald ville kunne rejses, ville være forholdsvis små beløb, der ikke i sig selv vil være tilstrækkelig til at udgøre en sådan risiko, der er kendetegnende for selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed. Der er endvidere henset til, at de krav som [virksomhed2] vælger at rejse, ikke afviger væsentlige fra de krav en arbejdsgiver ville kunne rejse over for en ansat, såfremt denne havde handlet groft uagtsom eller med forsæt. [virksomhed2] har på tilsvarende måde en graduering af kravet over for dig som kurerpartner, ud fra en vurdering af tilegnelsen. De væsentlige forhold, at du er frit stillet i forhold til arbejdstid, herunder hvor mange opgaver, der i givet fald ønskes, muligheden for at ansætte personale til løsning af opgaver og et ikke aftalt opsigelsesvarsel, er efter Skattestyrelsens opfattelse ikke tilstrækkelig til at opveje ovenstående i en sådan grad, at vederlagene kan kvalificeres som indkomst ved selvstændig virksomhed. Det forhold, at du i visse tilfælde har erhvervet væsentlige erhvervsmæssige driftsmidler eller har lønnet medhjælp til brug for løsningen af opgaver, kan efter en konkret og individuel vurdering ikke medføre, at du som kurerpartner kan anses for selvstændig erhvervsdrivende. Dit vederlag vil derfor ikke anses for at være indkomst ved selvstændig virksomhed, men må derimod i stedet skulle anses for enten løn- eller honorarindkomst. (…) A-indkomst Af punkt 3.1.1.5 i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 til Personskatteloven fremgår det ”…at forhold, man ellers ville bedømme som selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, f.eks. ved levering af enkeltstående ydelser, kan skifte karakter til et tjenesteforhold, hvis der opstår en mere fast tilknytning til en hvervgiver”. Det anføres endvidere at ”Der behøver heller ikke at foreligge en egentlig ansættelseskontrakt. Det afgørende er en bedømmelse af de faktiske forhold. Løn til løsarbejdere, der ansættes fra dag til dag, er således lønindkomst”. Det fremgår af § 43 i kildeskatteloven, at enhver form for vederlag i penge for personligt arbejde i tjenesteforhold henregnes til A-indkomst. Vederlaget anses således for at være omfattet af kildeskattelovens § 43, stk. 1, samtidigt med at det kan bemærkes, at vederlaget samlet set er velegnet til at danne grundlag for, at der indeholdes forskudsskatter, jf. forarbejderne til kildeskattelovens § 43, stk. 1, idet der i alt væsentligt er tale om en nettoindkomst for modtageren, og at indkomstens størrelse derfor i sig selv er afgørende for, hvilken skat der skal svares af den. Dette medfører efter Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at selv om der eventuelt skulle være tvivl om, hvorvidt du som kurerpartner er selvstændig eller ej, så vil det forhold, at der fast leveres ydelser kunne medføre, at der opstår et tjenesteforhold. Det er Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at dette specielt vil gøre sig gældende i tilfælde, hvor den ydelse, der leveres, er en integreret del af hvervgivers forretningsmodel, som det er tilfældet i forhold til [virksomhed2]s brug af kurerpartnere. Sammenfattende anser Skattestyrelsen, på baggrund af arbejdsgiverkontrollen, det vederlag [virksomhed2] har udbetalt til dig som kurerpartner, for at være skattepligtig indtægt efter statsskattelovens § 4. Indtægten beskattes som personlig indkomst i henhold til personskattelovens § 3, stk. 1. Indtægten er arbejdsmarkedsbidragspligtig A-indkomst, jf. kildeskattelovens § 43, stk. 1 og arbejdsmarkedsbidragslovens § 2, stk. 1. Hvis kunden eventuelt har betalt drikkepenge i forbindelse med ordren via [virksomhed2], har kunden betalt med sit betalingskort. [virksomhed2] har efterfølgende udbetalt drikkepengene til dig, og derfor anses beløbet som løn. Se kildeskattelovens § 43, stk. 1, og arbejdsmarkedsbidragslovens § 2, stk. 1, nr. 1 og nr. 2. [virksomhed2] har til Skattestyrelsen oplyst, at de indtægter (eksklusive eventuelle drikkepenge), som du har erhvervet fra [virksomhed2] på dit CVR-nummer, er inklusive moms. Det fremgår af de afregningsbilag, du har modtaget fra [virksomhed2]. Hvis du ikke har angivet og afregnet momsen, du har modtaget fra [virksomhed2], anser Skattestyrelsen det som udgangspunkt for en skattepligtig indtægt i medfør af statsskattelovens § 4. Se punkt 2.3 for yderligere om den momsmæssige behandling af dine vederlag fra [virksomhed2] i 2022. Ikke fradrag for udgifter til tøj, mad, telefoni, cykel, scooter mv. En lønmodtager skal som udgangspunkt oplyse eventuelle fradrag i rubrik 58, øvrige lønmodtagerudgifter. Det bemærkes dog, at du ikke kan få fradrag for udgifter til telefoni (abonnementsudgifter eller køb af telefon), køb/leje af cykel, scooter, bil mv., der betragtes som en privat udgift. Det bemærkes ligeledes, at der ikke kan opnås fradrag for eventuelle udgifter til tøj, sko mv., idet den indkomstgivende aktivitet (udbringning af mad) ikke nødvendiggør indkøb af specielt arbejdstøj, der er uegnet til privat brug, som er forudsætningen for at opnå fradrag. Det bemærkes desuden, at der ikke gives fradrag for de første 6.500 kr. i rubrik 58, øvrige lønmodtagerudgifter. Der henvises til ligningslovens § 9, stk. 1, statsskattelovens § 6, stk. 2, og den juridiske vejledning, afsnit C.A.4.3.1.6, C.A.4.3.1.7. og C.C.2.2.1.3 Ud fra ovenstående foreslår Skattestyrelsen, at din [virksomhed2]-indkomst i 2022 opgøres således: Skattestyrelsens forslag til ændringer Rubrik 11, Lønindkomst mv. Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (CVR) (eks. moms, inkl. eventuelle drikkepenge) 501.976 kr. Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (indberettet af [virksomhed2] i rubrik 12) 0 kr. Yderligere skattepligtig indtægt (manglende afregnet moms), se punkt 2.3 35.328 kr. Samlet vederlag fra [virksomhed2] 537.304 kr. Oplyst beløb i rubrik 11 vedrørende [virksomhed2]-vederlag 0 kr. Ændringsbeløb i rubrik 11, lønindkomst mv. 537.304 kr. Tilbageførsel af oplyst resultat vedrørende [virksomhed2]-indtægt i rubrik 12, Honorarindkomst Hvis du forud for din CVR-registrering har modtaget vederlag fra [virksomhed2], som er indberettet af [virksomhed2] i rubrik 12 (honorarindkomst) på din årsopgørelse for 2022, overfører vi beløbet til rubrik 11 (lønindkomst), idet din indkomst anses som A-indkomst i 2022. Vi foreslår herefter, at dit oplyste resultat vedrørende [virksomhed2]-indtægten i rubrik 12, Honorarindkomst, ændres fra 0 kr. til 0 kr. Tilbageførsel af oplyst resultat vedrørende [virksomhed2]-indtægt i rubrik 111, overskud af virksomhed Skattestyrelsen formoder, at det beløb, du har oplyst i rubrik 111, overskud af virksomhed, vedrører [virksomhed2]. Vi har vurderet, at dine [virksomhed2]-aktiviteter ikke i skattemæssig forstand kan klassificeres som erhvervet ved selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed. Vi har anset indtægten for A-indkomst, der skal oplyses i rubrik 11. Se begrundelsen ovenfor. Vi foreslår herefter, at dit oplyste resultat vedrørende [virksomhed2]-indtægten i rubrik 111, overskud af virksomhed, ændres fra 241.100 kr. til 0 kr. Fradrag for udgifter Rubrik 51, befordringsfradrag (kørselsfradrag) Lønmodtagere kan som udgangspunkt hverken fratrække faktiske, erhvervsmæssige befordringsudgifter, eller fratrække udgifterne efter satserne for erhvervsmæssig befordring. Der henvises til ligningslovens § 9, stk. 1. [virksomhed2] har ikke udbetalt hel eller delvis skattefri befordringsgodtgørelse til dig, og derfor kan du i medfør af ligningslovens § 9 B, stk. 4, alene foretage fradrag for befordringsudgifter efter reglerne om kørselsfradrag i ligningslovens § 9 C (normalfradraget). Se den juridiske vejlednings afsnit C.A.4.3.3.2.1. Satserne for kørselsfradraget fastsættes hvert år af Skatterådet, og i 2022 var satserne: 0 kr. for 0 - 24 km 2,16 kr. pr. km for 25 - 120 km 1,08 kr. pr. km for over 120 km Fradraget er uafhængigt af transportform (cykel, scooter og/eller bil), og der er ikke fradrag for de første 24 km af transporten. Se ligningslovens § 9 C, stk. 2 og bekendtgørelse nr. 534 af 26. april 2022. Vi har i medfør af skattekontrollovens § 2, stk. 1 og § 74 foretaget en skønsmæssig opgørelse af dit kørselsfradrag i forbindelse med din udbringning for [virksomhed2]. Ved udøvelsen af skønnet har Skattestyrelsen anvendt data fra [virksomhed2] vedrørende kurerpartneres indtægt og kørselsmønster2. Vi har desuden anvendt offentligt tilgængelige data fra [virksomhed2]s hjemmeside, hvoraf det kan udledes, at den gennemsnitlige indtægt for en [virksomhed2] kurerpartner er 175 kr. i timen. Med udgangspunkt i ovenstående har vi udregnet: Den gennemsnitlige indtægt for et [virksomhed2]bud (CVR) Det gennemsnitlige antal kørte kilometer for et [virksomhed2]bud (data fra [virksomhed2]s app) I skønnet har vi anslået, at en [virksomhed2] kurerpartner i gennemsnit er aktiv fire timer om dagen, hvorfor en dagsløn for en kurerpartner udgør 700 kr. (175 kr. á fire timer) Baseret på ovenstående informationer har vi udregnet, at et CVR-bud i gennemsnit har arbejdet for [virksomhed2] i 105 dage og har kørt i alt 6.000 km ifm. med udbringning for [virksomhed2]. Oprundet svarer ovenstående til et kørselsfradrag på 10% af lønnen. Dit fradrag kan herefter skønsmæssigt opgøres således: Indtægt i 2022 Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (CVR) (eks. moms) 501.976 kr. Vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (indberettet af [virksomhed2] i rubrik 12) 0 kr. Samlet vederlag fra [virksomhed2] 501.976 kr. Dit kørselsfradrag i rubrik 51, befordringsfradrag kan herefter opgøres til 10 % af 501.976 kr. eller i alt 50.198 kr. Skattestyrelsens afgørelse Skattestyrelsen har den 4. juni 2024 modtaget dine indsigelser til vores forslag af 16. maj 2024: Dear [person1], Here are my comments on your proposal for changes in taxes for 2022. Although I know well that you have the power and the opportunity to decide what you want and and that you do not need another point of view, I will give you some arguments why I think the suggested decision will be wrong. And also not fair-because you as a state agency provide help and assistance only for the stronger company([virksomhed2]) in this issue and all negative consequences are left for the weak company(me). Here are some of the main reasons why I am working as a self-employed and not as a salaried worker. I am working like a courier for [virksomhed2]. But it is not the same like if I work like a courier for [virksomhed3], [virksomhed4] or [virksomhed5]. Because there are too many differences and there is no even one similarity. Below are some of the differences: 1. Salaried couriers like those mentioned above use company cars and do not have personal expenses for fuel and car maintenance. I as a [virksomhed2] courier have to buy a car myself and have to buy the fuel for making deliveries. If a [virksomhed5] courier don’t have money for a car or even just for fuel, he can go to work with the public transport or with some other colleague’s car. And he can work with company car even if he has no personal money for fuel- for example 5 days before salary. [virksomhed2] courier can not deliver with public transport. Also if I don’t have money to tank my car I am not able to work and earn income and have to stop working until I receive the next money from [virksomhed2]. Answer: In our assessment we have emphasized some factors, which you can read about in section 1.3 in the letter of proposal: • The basic characteristics of an independent business are not present when carrying out [virksomhed2]-activities. Expenses regarding transportation, personal car, or other similar expenses do not by themselves cause the income to be considered income earned from self-employment. In general the financial risks related to carrying out activities through [virksomhed2] are limited and the main risks are primarily on [virksomhed2] as a company, not you as a courier. For instance [virksomhed2] covers all expenses related to the Partner App, which is necessary to carry out tasks, and which is considered the most important ‘tool’ for you as a courier. • Among other things, we have emphasized, that it is [virksomhed2] who organizes and distributes tasks. Moreover, the contract is detailed, with guidelines for the execution of the work and so on. The contract contains a number of instructional powers, which in Skattestyrelsens opinion suggests that the activities on [virksomhed2] is an employer/employee relationship. As a result, we have found that your [virksomhed2]-income from 2022 onwards is A-income. Hence our suggestion to declare your [virksomhed2]-income in box 11, Earned income on you tax assessment notice. 2. [virksomhed2] doesn’t pay holiday money so when I go on holiday it’s always unpaid period. Are there any other salaried workers who are not entitled of holiday pay according to the Danish labour law? Answer: Questions regarding holiday allowance is not within the field of responsibility of the Danish tax agency and must be addressed directly with [virksomhed2] and the ministry of employment. 3. Salaried workers have fixed hourly rates, determined in their contracts. My hourly wage is not determined in my agreement with [virksomhed2]. It is also not fixed, but dynamic and changes every day and every month because it depends on the number of customers served and the number of my other colleagues. This means that if [virksomhed2] don’t need my service to deliver one order I will not receive any money for this day. Also if [virksomhed2] has 10 orders for this day but there are 20 couriers working on that day, there is 50% risk that I will not receive money again even though [virksomhed2] has some orders. Because they can use the service of any of the other 19 couriers. I do not know a salaried worker whose salary depends on the number of his customers and the number of his colleagues. Answer: In total, you have earned over 500.000 kr. So continuously, you must have received some orders for you to accept. Regardless, the actual hourly wage is not a decisive factor in our assessment of the [virksomhed2] income. 4. The salaries of the salaried workers are normally indexed with the percent of the inflation. At [virksomhed2] my income is not only not increased with the inflation percentage but it is even decreased. This can be seen very clearly from my statistics. For 2022 I received 145 DKK for 1 hour on average, for 2023 -120 DKK per hour, for 2024-115 DKK per hour. I cannot find an example of another type salaried worker whose salary is indexed with negative percentage in a situation of growing inflation! If this trend continues the hourly wage can be as low as 80 or 90 DKK per hour. Even now I have examples for this. On 07.03.2024 I have been on duty 9 hours and [virksomhed2] gave me to deliver only 3 orders for totally 188 DKK or I had worked for 20 DKK per hour which is my antirecord until now. I have also days with 28 DKK, 38 DKK, 42 DKK, 55 DKK per hour. So this happens regularly and hypothetically this can happen all the time. Lets take an example with 50 DKK per hour for 20 working days and 12 hour per day. This makes 12000 DKK monthly salary. If you take 46 % income tax and 18% goes for car maintenance and fuel, I will have 4320 DKK for me . 4320 DKK is not enough monthly income for a foreigner in Denmark, living in a rented apartment. Answer: Issues regarding the business model of [virksomhed2] and the size of your hourly/monthly/yearly wages must be addressed directly with [virksomhed2]. As a [virksomhed2]-courier in 2022, your total wages were over 500.000 kr. suggesting that your average monthly salary must have been a little higher than 12.000 kr. 5. You have mentioned that [virksomhed2] courier earns average 175 DKK per hour but it is not an average rate for all couriers. Someone receives orders from [virksomhed2] for 230-240 DKK per hour and other receives 2 times less orders for 130-140 DKK per hour. If we are salaried workers I think we have the right to receive equal payment for equal time and quality of service provided and not to be discriminated by [virksomhed2]. Answer: Issues regarding the business model of [virksomhed2] and the size of your hourly wages must be addressed directly with [virksomhed2]. 6. If I for some reasons I damage the order before delivering it to the customer, [virksomhed2] will deduct the full cost of the order from my income-doesn’t matter if it cost 100 or 1000 DKK. There is a risk after 15-hours working day not only to have low income but also to be at loss-if the deduction for the damaged order is higher than the payment I receive for all other deliveries for the day. If a worker in [virksomhed10] broke an expensive bottle of wine while putting it on the shelves, he will not pay for the damage. This is one very strong difference between me and the real salaried workers. Answer: According to our information from [virksomhed2], deductions regarding non-intentional damages will be limited to an amount not exceeding 175 kr. The Danish Tax Agency does not find that the responsibility of any damaged goods automatically has sufficiently been transferred to you. Instead, it considers the responsibility to be indirect, similar to the indirect responsibility an employee has towards their employer if the employee has acted with gross negligence or intent. Thus, there does not appear to be a risk beyond what is normal in an employee-employer relationship. From everything mentioned above a person with normal logical thinking could say that [virksomhed2] couriers are very similar to taxi drivers (because their income depends on the number of their colleagues in the city in the same way like my income depends on the number of my colleagues) or to hairdressers (because their income depends on the number of customers with appointment for haircut). And only a person with quite strong imagination and completely lack of logical thinking can make a statement that [virksomhed2] couriers agreements have the same conditions and characteristics as the labour contracts of the regular salaried workers( like shop assistants, office workers, police officers, firefighters, [virksomhed5] or [virksomhed4] couriers or tax officers) Disclaimer Please note that in case of any dispute, the Danish version of this letter will prevail. Din indsigelse giver derfor ikke på det foreliggende grundlag Skattestyrelsen anledning til at imødekomme din indsigelse. Skattestyrelsen fastholder herefter ændringerne i overensstemmelse med forslaget. (…)” Udtalelse fra Skattestyrelsen I forbindelse med klagesagens behandling er Skattestyrelsen den 13. februar 2025 komme med følgende bemærkninger: ”(…) Skattestyrelsen har ingen bemærkninger til [virksomhed2]s eventuelle udbetalinger af skattefri kørselsgodtgørelse til deres ansatte. (…) Ifølge Skattestyrelens oplysninger fra [virksomhed2] bliver bude ved ikke-forsætlige handlinger pålagt et erstatningskrav på maksimalt 175 kr. (og ofte mindre end det) – uanset ordrens størrelse. Det er derfor Skattestyrelsens vurdering, at der reelt ikke er tale om, at buddene handler for egen regning og risiko. For Skattestyrelsen minder det om det indirekte ansvar en ansat har overfor sin arbejdsgiver, såfremt arbejdsgiverens objektive ansvar overfor tredjemand udløses ved at den ansatte har handlet groft uagtsomt eller forsætligt. Skattestyrelsen mener altså ikke, at der er tale om en risiko, der ligger udover hvad der er normalt i lønmodtagerforhold – udover at buddet har en risiko ved ikke at modtage betaling fra [virksomhed2], såfremt [virksomhed2] giver en kunde medhold i en klage over en mangelfuld udbringning. Sammenfattende mener Skattestyrelsen derfor, at ovenstående forhold hos [virksomhed2] - ud fra kriteriet i personskattecirkulærets punkt 3.1.1.2 litra d - taler imod, at budene er selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, set i forhold til den økonomiske risiko de reelt har ved at udføre opgaver for [virksomhed2]. (…) Skattestyrelsen er ikke af den opfattelse, at det er udtryk for en stor økonomisk risiko, at klager selv har afholdt udgifter til det transportmiddel, der er anvendt. Der er Skattestyrelsen opfattelse, at der ikke er tale om en risiko, der afviger væsentligt fra de udgifter, en lønmodtager kunne have til transport eller erhvervsmæssig kørsel for en arbejdsgiver Sammenfattende mener Skattestyrelsen derfor, at forholdene hos [virksomhed2] - ud fra kriteriet i personskattecirkulærets punkt 3.1.1.2 litra d - taler imod, at budene er selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, set i forhold til den økonomiske risiko, de reelt har ved at udføre opgaver for [virksomhed2]. (…) Skattestyrelsen har ingen bemærkninger ud over det svar, der fremgår på side 11 i afgørelsen af 22. oktober 2024: at spørgsmål, der relaterer sig til feriepenge, løn under sygdom mv. ikke hører under Skattestyrelsens ressortområde. (…) Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er vurderet på baggrund af de kriterier, der er angivet i punkt 3.1.1 i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven. En lønmodtager er skattemæssigt defineret ved at være en person, der modtager vederlag for personligt arbejde i et tjenesteforhold. Dette vederlag er som regel udbetalt periodisk, og herudover arbejder en lønmodtager efter arbejdsgiverens anvisninger og for dennes regning og risiko. Skattestyrelsen betragter begrebet løn, som ’den almindelige periodiske arbejdsløn, uanset om den kaldes løn, honorar, provision eller andet’. Se den juridiske vejledning, afsnit C.A 3.1.1. Ud fra denne definition kan en lønmodtagers arbejdspræstation og resultater (fx akkord- eller resultatløn) godt være omfattet af begrebet løn og lønmodtagerbegrebet. Dette fremgår også af personskattecirkulæret punkt 3.1.1.1 litra f. Herudover har Skattestyrelsen ingen bemærkninger, i det det er Skatteansættelsen uvedkommende, hvor mange timer, der er brugt på indtægtserhvervelsen. (…) Som allerede nævnt er Skattestyrelsen ikke af den opfattelse, at det er udtryk for en stor økonomisk risiko, at klager selv har afholdt udgifter til det transportmiddel der er anvendt. Der er Skattestyrelsen opfattelse, at der ikke er tale om en risiko, der afviger væsentligt fra de udgifter, en lønmodtager kunne have til transport eller erhvervsmæssig kørsel for en arbejdsgiver. Sammenfattende mener Skattestyrelsen derfor, at forholdene hos [virksomhed2] - ud fra kriteriet i personskattecirkulærets punkt 3.1.1.2 litra d - taler imod, at budene er selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, set i forhold til den økonomiske risiko, de reelt har ved at udføre opgaver for [virksomhed2]. Det skal bemærkes, at satserne for befordringsfradrag og skattefri godtgørelse for erhvervsmæssig kørsel, som hvert år fastsættes af Skatterådet, tager højde for udviklingen i benzinpriserne. Ved fastsættelse af satserne indgår der i beregningerne også et skøn over omkostninger til bilens vedligeholdelse, der bl.a. omfatter udgifter til service, udskiftning af sliddele, afbalancering af dæk, supplerende rustbehandling og forsikringer m.v. Skattestyrelsen har ingen bemærkninger herudover. (…) Skattestyrelsen har ingen bemærkninger til dette punkt. (…) Ifølge Skattestyrelens oplysninger, har en [virksomhed2]-kurerpartner ikke en pligt til at arbejde eller påtage sig opgaver for [virksomhed2], og omvendt har [virksomhed2] som selskab ikke ret til at tilrettelægge arbejdstiden. Dette forhold taler isoleret set imod, at selskabet har instruktionsbeføjelse over for kurerpartnerne. Isoleret set er dette således et kriterie der taler imod, at [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er A-indkomst jf. afsnit 3.1.1.1 litra a Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er imidlertid foretaget ud fra en samlet vurdering af de kriterier, der er angivet i punkt 3.1.1 i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven, hvor det er anført, at ingen af kriterierne, der taler henholdsvis for lønmodtager eller selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, i sig selv er afgørende (3.1.1.3) I vurderingen af vederlaget er momentet ikke tillagt afgørende betydning, men det bemærkes, at klager samlet set har haft en indtægt fra [virksomhed2] på over 500.000 kr. i 2022, hvorfor manglen på ordrer alt andet lige må have været begrænset. (…) Skattestyrelsen har ingen bemærkninger ift. [virksomhed2]s forretningsmodel, herunder gebyrer og eventuel kørselsgodtgørelse. (…) Skattestyrelsen er ikke af den opfattelse, at det er udtryk for en stor økonomisk risiko, at klager selv har afholdt udgifter til det transportmiddel, der er anvendt. Der er Skattestyrelsen opfattelse, at der ikke er tale om en risiko, der afviger væsentligt fra de udgifter, en lønmodtager kunne have til transport eller erhvervsmæssig kørsel for en arbejdsgiver. Sammenfattende mener Skattestyrelsen derfor, at forholdene hos [virksomhed2] - ud fra kriteriet i personskattecirku-lærets punkt 3.1.1.2 litra d - taler imod, at budene er selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, set i forhold til den økonomiske risiko, de reelt har ved at udføre opgaver for [virksomhed2]. (…) Ifølge Skattestyrelens oplysninger, har en [virksomhed2]-kurerpartner ikke en pligt til at arbejde eller påtage sig opgaver for [virksomhed2], og omvendt har [virksomhed2] som selskab ikke ret til at tilrettelægge arbejdstiden. Dette forhold taler isoleret set imod, at selskabet har instruktionsbeføjelse overfor kurerpartnerne. Isoleret set er dette således et kriterie, der taler imod, at [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er A-indkomst jf. afsnit 3.1.1 Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er imidlertid foretaget ud fra en samlet vurdering af de kriterier, der er angivet i punkt 3.1.1 i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven, hvor det er anført, at ingen af kriterierne, der taler henholdsvis for lønmodtager eller selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, i sig selv afgørende (3.1.1.3) (…) I personskattecirkulærets punkt 3.1.1.1 litra g er det anført, at der ved vurdering af, om der er tale om tjenesteforhold, kan lægges vægt på hvorvidt vederlaget udbetales periodisk. Det forhold, at klagers vederlag fra [virksomhed2] er udbetalt i faste 14-dages intervaller to gange om måneden er således et kriterie, der for Skattestyrelsen taler for et tjenesteforhold i medfør af punkt 3.1.1.1 litra g. (…) Skattestyrelsens skal bemærke, at [virksomhed2]-kurerpartnere ifølge Skattestyrelsens oplysninger alene kan blive gjort ansvarlig, såfremt [virksomhed2] beslutter det. Endvidere vil ansvaret blive begrænset såfremt kurerpartneren ikke har handlet forsætlig, og erstatningen vil i så fald maksimalt kunne udgøre 175 kr. Skattestyrelsen finder ikke, at ansvaret for selve den varer/mad der udbringes, derved er overgået til kurerpartnerne i et tilstrækkeligt omfang, men at der i stedet er tale om et indirekte ansvar der minder meget om det indirekte ansvar en ansat har over for sin arbejdsgiver, såfremt arbejdsgiverens objektive ansvar over for tredjemand udløses ved, at den ansatte har handlet groft uagtsomt eller forsætligt. Der ses således ikke at være en risiko, der ligger udover hvad der er normalt i lønmodtagerforhold, ved udførelsen af opgaver for [virksomhed2], udover at kurerpartneren risikerer ikke at modtage betaling, såfremt kunder klager. Det forhold, at klager i forbindelse med indkomsterhvervelsen afholder udgifter til transportmidler og beklædning m.v., ses umiddelbart ikke som værende udtryk for en risiko, og i så fald ikke en risiko der afviger væsentligt fra lønmodtagers afholdelse af udgifter til transport, herunder erhvervsmæssige kørsel for en arbejdsgiver, og beklædning m.v. Som allerede nævnt taler forholdet derfor i Skattestyrelsens optik forsat imod, at der er tale om selvstændig virksomhed. (…) Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er foretaget ud fra en samlet vurdering af kriterierne angivet i punkt 3.1.1, som taler for hhv. tjenesteforhold eller selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven. Det bemærkes, at ingen af kriterierne, der taler henholdsvis for lønmodtager eller selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, i sig selv er afgørende jf. cirkulærets punkt 3.1.1.3. Skattestyrelsen anfægter ikke, at klager reelt selv har valgfrihed ift. hvornår han vil være til rådighed for [virksomhed2] og om han vil acceptere en tilbudt opgave. Ligeledes er det intet opsigelsesvarsel. For Skattestyrelsen taler det forhold, at [virksomhed2] ikke tilrettelægger arbejdstiden og at budene ikke har pligt til at påtage sig opgaver imod, at der skulle være tale om et tjenesteforhold. Omvendt er det Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at det er [virksomhed2], som via appens algoritme reelt tilrettelægger og fordeler arbejdet, og at buddet ikke har indflydelse på, hvilke opgaver, som tildeles. Herudover sker selve den aktive handling (udbringningen) inden for nogle fastsatte krav og rammer, der for Skattestyrelsen har karakter af at være instruktionsbeføjelser. Blandt andet er der en række forhold i kontrakten ang. hygiejne, som er så detaljeret beskrevet, at det i Skattestyrelsens optik reelt kan sidestilles med retningslinjer for udførelsen af opgaverne, som har karakter af instruktionsbeføjelser. I Skattestyrelsens arbejdsgiverkontrol vedr. [virksomhed2] er det også fundet eksempler på, at kurerpartnerne instrueres i at vente yderligere ved leveringsstedet, mens [virksomhed2]-support prøver at komme i kontakt med kunder, som ikke er hjemme. Dette taler for Skattestyrelsen for, at [virksomhed2] reelt har instruktionsbeføjelserne over for budene, som ud fra personskattecirkulæret punkt 3.1.1.1 litra a er et kriterie der taler for et tjenesteforhold. Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af, at [virksomhed2]-vederlaget er A-indkomst er som tidligere nævnt vurderet på en samlet baggrund af de kriterier, der er angivet i punkt 3.1.1 i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven. (…) Det skal bemærkes, at [virksomhed2]-udbringning også kan ske på cykel eller scooter, hvorfor det ikke er en absolut forudsætning for indkomsterhvervelsen via [virksomhed2], at udbringningen sker i bil. Som allerede nævnt er Skattestyrelsen herudover ikke af den opfattelse, at det er udtryk for en stor økonomisk risiko, at klager selv har afholdt udgifter til det transportmiddel, der er anvendt. Der er Skattestyrelsen opfattelse, at der ikke er tale om en risiko, der afviger væsentligt fra de udgifter, en lønmodtager kunne have til transport eller erhvervsmæssig kørsel for en arbejdsgiver. (…) Klager henviser i ovenstående til beregningsgrundlaget ift. den skønsmæssige ansættelse af klagers befordringsfradrag, der fremgår af sagsfremstillingen. Skattestyrelsen skal bemærke, at klager i tilsendte forslag af 16. maj 2024 (side 9) er gjort opmærksom på indsende dokumentation i form af et kilometerregnskab, hvoraf der fremgår antal arbejdsdage og antal kørte kilometer pr. arbejdsdag, såfremt befordringsfradraget skal opgøres efter klagers faktiske kørsel. Klager har ikke indsendt denne dokumentation, hvorfor det skønsmæssige fradrag er fastholdt. (…) Skattestyrelsen skal bemærke, at klager henviser til en afgørelse fra en svensk domstol, som omhandler, hvorvidt [virksomhed2] arbejdsretligt skal betragtes som arbejdsgiver. Allerede af den årsag savner afgørelsen umiddelbart relevans for kvalifikationen af, hvorvidt [virksomhed2]-kurerpartnere i Danmark skatteretligt skal anses for lønmodtagere. Der bemærkes herudover, at de svenske myndigheder efterfølgende ankede dommen – og i december 2024 fik medhold i, at [virksomhed2]-kurerpartnere skal betragtes som arbejdstagere. [site1] (…) Skattestyrelsen har ikke yderligere bemærkninger andet end det, der fremgår af sagsfremstillingen: Tilbagebetaling kan ske til aftageren af den leverede vare eller ydelse i de tilfælde, hvor det ellers vil være umuligt eller uforholdsmæssigt vanskeligt for aftageren at få momsen tilbagebetalt via et civilretligt krav om tilbagesøgning af fejlagtigt betalte beløb over for leverandøren (klager). Se EU-domstolen dom i sag C-35/05, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH og Den juridiske vejledning afsnit D.A.11.1.4.3.2. Henset til antallet af [virksomhed2]-kurerpartnere og det faktum, at mange [virksomhed2]-kurerpartnere har været i Danmark i en kortere periode og er udrejst igen, vurderes det, at det for [virksomhed2] er umuligt eller uforholdsmæssigt vanskeligt at få momsen tilbagebetalt via et civilretligt krav. Det er derfor Skattestyrelsens vurdering, at de beløb, kurerpartnere har angivet og indbetalt i den tro, at der var tale om moms, skal reducere det krav, der i medfør af EU-Domstolens dom, sag C-342/87, Genius Holding BV, opstår hos [virksomhed2] som følge af den manglende fradragsret. Det betyder konkret, at [virksomhed2] bliver godskrevet den moms, kurerpartnerne har angivet og afregnet vedrørende [virksomhed2]-aktiviteter, under forudsætning af at der ikke er restancer, der skal modregnes først. (…) Skattestyrelsen har ingen bemærkninger til [virksomhed2] forretningsmodel, herunder gebyrer eller hvorvidt [virksomhed2] eventuelt vil rette et civilretligt regreskrav ift. det momsvederlag, budene har angivet, men ikke afregnet. (…) Skattestyrelsen skal bemærke, at klagers skat og fradrag ikke har relation til andre skatteyderes skatte- og momsmæssige dispositioner, i og med, at der i den pågældende sag alene er set nærmere på klagers indkomstforhold vedr. [virksomhed2], og hvad klager har oplyst og angivet i skat og moms i relation hertil. (…) Skattestyrelsen er underlagt udvidet tavshedspligt og kan ikke kommentere på forhold, herunder eventuelle retssager, hvori klager ikke er part. Men på et generelt plan skal Skattestyrelsen bemærke, at det tages til efterretning, såfremt en klageinstans underkender Skattestyrelsens afgørelser. (…)” Klagerens opfattelse Klageren har nedlagt påstand om, at klageren er selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, og at Skattestyrelsens forhøjelse af A-indkomst skal nedsættes til 0 kr. Til støtte for påstanden er bl.a. anført: ”(…) Here is my appeal to a tax decision, created by [person1] from the Danish Tax Agency which I received on October 22, 2024. The appealed decision followed a proposal from [person1] for changes in my taxes for 2022 year, which I received on May 16, 2024. I disagreed with the proposed changes and sent my comments to her on June 4, 2024. On October 22, 2024 [person1] sent me her final decision. She included my comments and provided some answers to them but in general she ignored my arguments because she considered them as 100 % wrong. She is strongly determined that her decision is 100 % right and correct! I do not agree that the decision is 100% right and do not understand the reasons for her determination to insist on 100% on her initial decision after the receipt of my comments. I do not agree that it is right even on 10% and therefore I am using the option, mentioned in her letter, to file an appeal with you. [person1] from the Danish Tax Agency considers me as an employee in [virksomhed2] and not as a selfemployed partner, providing transport services to [virksomhed2] (despite that throughout the decision she uses the term [virksomhed2]s partner and not [virksomhed2]s employee). She writes the following in her decision: “The emphasis is on the fact that you as a courier partner actually work for [virksomhed2]s account and risk, thereby missing the basic characteristics of an independent business, and that it is [virksomhed2] that bears all expenses for the Partner App, which are necessary to carry out tasks, and therefore the most important tool. This means that it is basically a net income for you, which is settled periodically according to a method that is customary for employee relationships, in an ongoing contractual relationship.” Her statement is not correct, because: I am a courier partner to [virksomhed2], but I am not working for [virksomhed2]s account and risk: The expenses for car leasing, car maintenance, annual taxes, insurances and fuel that are needed for performing the delivery services to [virksomhed2] are covered 100 % by me and 0% by [virksomhed2]. [person1] decides that I am an employee in [virksomhed2] but she does not provide even one example of similar employer‐employee relationship where the employee is using his own car for work and his own fuel‐without receiving any compensation from his employer. The couriers working in [virksomhed6] use their own cars but they are receiving 3.79 DKK for every km driven for [virksomhed6]. And this money is not taxable. This means that [virksomhed6] is covering the fuel and car maintenance for their workers on 100 %, like every other employer in Denmark does. Are there any legal requirements for them to pay this money, or they are just more generous than [virksomhed2]? And if there are legal requirements for this money why these legal requirements are not valid for [virksomhed2]? The risk and the expenses for compensating the customers because of damaged goods, or mixed and wrongly delivered orders, or undelivered orders, are covered 100 % by me and 0% by [virksomhed2]. [virksomhed2] is only making the transfer between my account and the customer’s account. The risk of not being able to generate income due to car damage is 100 % beared by me and 0% by [virksomhed2]. [person1] decides that I am an employee in [virksomhed2] but she does not provide even one example of similar employer/employee relationship where the employee is repairing the company car with funds from his personal income without any compensation from the employer. In addition‐all other employees can reach their working place with the cheaper public transport while I cannot use the public transport for delivering orders from restaurants to the customers. Moreover‐if an employee is using a company car and it breaks down, he simply takes another company car without any extra cost and he continues to work without stopping even for 1 hour or 1 day. This means that the car breaks doesn’t affect his salary income in any way and his income remains the same regardless of how many days the mechanic needs to repair the broken car. What is the result if the same situation happens to me as an self‐employed? I have to stop my service for [virksomhed2] until the car is repaired. This means that in such situation my income is affected in three ways. First, I have to pay the full cost of the repair works and my monthly disposable income is reduced with this amount. Second, during the repair period I am not able to continue with providing transport services to [virksomhed2] or to any other customer which means that my income for the period is again decreased. Third, I have to pay income taxes on the real value of repair works which means that my income for the period is again reduced. [virksomhed2] is not affected by these expenses and its profit is not reduced with them in the way in which these expenses reduce the profit of the real employer with real employees who are delivering with employer’s cars. The risk of not being able to generate income due to sickness or holiday is 100 % beared by me and 0% by [virksomhed2]. [person1] considers me as an employee in [virksomhed2] but she is not providing even one example of similar employer/employee relationship where the employee is not receiving any compensation from the employer in case of sickness and holiday. She advises me to address [virksomhed2] about my money for sickness and holiday. Her advice is weird. When the dispute is about money that [virksomhed2] has to receive from me she is not advising [virksomhed2] to make contact with me but simply takes the money from my tax account and gives them to [virksomhed2]. But when the dispute is about money that I have to receive from [virksomhed2] she is not applying the same approach. She doesn’t transfer the money from [virksomhed2]s tax account to my account but she is satisfied only with an advice that I should address my inquires to [virksomhed2]. And if she considers me employee, then there is no doubt that she has the right and the power to deduct the money from [virksomhed2]s tax account. What is the reason she is not doing this? Does she consider that [virksomhed2] drivers should pay only taxes in Denmark without receiving the typical social benefits and protection of the employment relationship? Does she thinks so because the majority of [virksomhed2] drivers are immigrants and they have to be excluded from protection by the governmental organizations and the tax and work safety authorities in particular? With the same success she can advise me to address [virksomhed7], [virksomhed8], [virksomhed9] and any other service provider with request to decrease their prices. The truth is that I cannot address [virksomhed7] and other service providers with request to decrease their prices. I can choose only between using or not using their services. Only the government organizations can regulate their prices. The same is with [virksomhed2]. I can only choose to provide services for them or not. I am not able to negotiate the prices [virksomhed2] offers to me, because if I do so they will just stop using my services and will offer their partnership to other. The risk of low payment due to less customers or high number of couriers is 100 % beared by me. [person1] decides that I am an employee in [virksomhed2] but she does not give even one example of similar employer/employee relationship where the employee’s salary depends on the number of served customers and the number of his colleagues on duty. The cashier in [virksomhed10] for example receives the same hourly wage in such days where 100 customers are shopping and also in such days when 5 or 500 customers are shopping. He receives the same wage when it is only him who is serving all customers and also when two more colleagues are serving the customers in the shop. The answer that I should address [virksomhed2] about the size of my wages and that she is not interested in how many hours I need to work in order to have this income is weird. All employees have fixed hourly wages in their contract. There is no a single employee who goes to work and do not know for how much money he works per hour and how much money he takes when the 7 or 8‐hour working day is over. There are no employees who are working 24 hours! Only companies are open 24 hours. There are no employers who are using more employees than they need. There are no employers where for examples 10 colleagues are doing all tasks and 1 or 2 are just being present in the office or in the factory without receiving any tasks but also without receiving any money. [virksomhed2] is not stopping to sign contracts with new couriers. The result is that some couriers receive orders and earn 200 or 250 DKK per hour every day and others receive as low as 30 DKK per hour and they have to work 15 hours every day to generate a minimal income. Why If I am an employee I have to work 15 or 24 hours to have the same or even lower income like the average employee in Denmark or some selected couriers in [virksomhed2] for 8 hours? Why [person1] doesn’t answer this question? Why she doesn’t find it discriminative and unequal treatment and payment and do not provide protection or make a signal to the competent anti‐discrimination authorities in Denmark? . I am not able even to protect myself from the high discrimination [virksomhed2] applies to me every day. If I am an employee in [virksomhed2], can they treat me discriminatively without any consequences for them? Is it typical for Denmarks employers to discriminate their employees on base of their origin? Is it typical thing for Denmark employers to hold their employees on duty without paying them any money? Is it typical for Denmark employers to hire every day new workers when the old workers are not fired, but also are not paid any salary? And the legal costs for starting a private court case is minumum 200 000 DKK. This is more than my net income for 1 year. Why [person1] is not making an assessment that it is impossible or disproportionally difficult for me to claim the money from [virksomhed2] via civil court claim? The risk of high prices of fuel and car maintenance is 100 % beared by me and 0 % by [virksomhed2]. 2022 was not so long time ago and everyone remembers what was the price for 1 liter benzin‐it was more than 17 DKK for 1 liter. And it will be again 17 DKK and more. That high fuel price is not resulting in increase of the price that [virksomhed2] offered to me for making deliveries‐it is even the opposite‐[virksomhed2] is decreasing the prices of our services when the fuel price is increasing. At the same time‐the regular employees of [virksomhed3] for example didn’t feel the high prices of fuel and their income remained unchanged because the difference in fuel price is paid by the company‐their employer. The employees who use their cars to reach their workplace can choose to use the public transport or share a car with a neighbor or a colleague when the fuel price is very high. I do not have this option and this leads to very high discrimination if [person1]s decision comes into effect. The risk of increased tax obligations for [virksomhed2] due to wrong tax decisions is 100 % covered by me as a courier and 0% by [virksomhed2]. In June 2023 the Danish tax agency deleted our VAT registrations. This resulted in millions DKK VAT tax obligations for [virksomhed2] because of lack of deduction. In response [virksomhed2] increased the commission on every order with 14 DKK in order to compensate the loss they generated because of the tax decision. Although [virksomhed2] appealed the decision, the tax obligations were paid in full in 2023 and [virksomhed2] was compensated only by the couriers through increased commissions on all delivery tasks. [virksomhed2]s office employees didn’t pay anything and their salaries were even increased in 2023. The risk of lack of customers is 100 % beared by me. If there are no orders [virksomhed2] doesn’t pay anything for my time on duty. To compare with [virksomhed6]‐their couriers are their employees and they receive money for every hour on duty regardless if they have orders or no. This means that [virksomhed6] have risk to pay money without receiving income. [virksomhed2] doesn’t have this risk. [virksomhed2] doesn’t bear all expenses in connection with the performance of services It is just the opposite‐couriers are bearing all expenses because they are the source of income to [virksomhed2] in the form of commissions. We are paying a commission on every order received through the Partner App. And this commission is constantly increasing. The price model of [virksomhed2] is not transparent and you cannot calculate the commission in percentage but you can follow its increase when you look at [virksomhed2]s history in Denmark. [virksomhed2] started to operate in Denmark in 2017 and until now the commission the couriers are paying for using the platform has increased with 24 DKK per order ( in 2017 the minimum price for one order is 45 DKK, in 2025 this price is 21 DKK) There is no an example for online platform that someone can use for free in order to earn money and [virksomhed2] platform is also not free when couriers use it!!! Couriers are bearing the main and biggest expense‐ the fuel and car maintenance. [virksomhed2] is NOT providing fuel, cars and car maintenance for the delivery services and is not paying compensation for these expenses in any form. [person1] is not pointing even one type of employment relationship where the employees are paying commissions on their salary to their employer. The statement that my income is net income for me is not true. In order to generate income from delivery service provided to [virksomhed2] I need to maintain a car and pay for fuel myself. All these expenses cannot be treated like disposable income for me, because I cannot save from them and use the amount for other personal expenses. All employees can decide to spend their income for car maintenance and fuel for their own comfort. But this expense is not connected in any way to their ability to receive salary income. They can save from owning a car and go to work with public transport or share a car with colleagues. And they will receive the same salary. My car expenses are directly connected to my job. I cannot generate income without those expenses. All other employees receive salary and it doesn’t matter for them if they go to work with car or with train. I cannot use the public transport for performing services to [virksomhed2]. So the statement that my income from [virksomhed2] is net income is wrong on 100%. [person1] is not pointing even one type of employment relationship where the employee pays from his salary the fuel for the business. The statement that there is an agreement for ongoing work is not true As a courier partner for [virksomhed2] I can decide when to provide services for [virksomhed2] and when not to provide. This means that [virksomhed2] cannot rely on me for providing services every day like the real employer rely on its employees. I can work today and my next working day can be after one, two or five months or even after a whole year. This freedom is missing in all regular employment relationships. There is no employment relationship in Denmark, in the European Union or any other country in the world where the employee can work with so big pauses without informing the employer and without receiving his approval! The statement that the payment is settled periodically according to a method that is customary for employment relationships and that’s why I should be considered an employee in [virksomhed2] is a weird statement. The payment method is not a criteria for an employment relationship. Or [person1] expects that I have to issue an invoice on every completed delivery in order to consider me as a self-employed? But then my question is why the energy providers are not issuing invoices every day but only 1 time in the month? They have exact information for our consumption day by day and even hour by hour. The internet providers also know exactly our consumption hour by hour and day by day. Why they are not issuing invoices every day but only 1 time in the month? The statement that [virksomhed2] app is the most important tool is not true. The most important part in this kind of business is the driver and his vehicle. I can deliver goods to customer without [virksomhed2] app. The customer has just to contact the restaurant and the restaurant to contact me. [virksomhed2] only makes this connecting process easier and faster. Like the mobile phones and internet made our lives easier and faster . But we are using them the last 30 or 40 years. I understand that young people like [person1] think that the [virksomhed2] app is the most important tool, because they cannot imagine a life without internet, mobile phones and applications. But in fact people were living also without mobile phones and internet and were ordering and receiving goods again. [virksomhed2] is just using the benefits of the mobile phones and internet to generate income only by charging commissions to the merchants and drivers. [virksomhed2] can not generate income without the services, provided by drivers like me. She continues with the following: “In relation to your risk as a courier partner, it is assumed that the potential risk that appears from the contractual basis in connection with damaged goods and claims for compensation from customers has not been actively enforced, and that the risk is therefore not real. To the extent that the claim for compensation is actually enforced (which [virksomhed2] has stated will happen after June 2022), it is the opinion of the Danish Tax Agency that the claims that could be raised in this case would be relatively small amounts that would not in themselves be sufficient to constitute such a risk that is characteristic of an independent business. It is also taken into account that the claims that [virksomhed2] chooses to raise do not differ significantly from the claims that an employer could raise against an employee if the latter had acted grossly negligently or intentionally” The above statement is completely wrong, because the risk in connection with damaged orders is not only real but it is very high. [virksomhed2] deducts from my earning the whole price of the order‐doesn’t matter if it costs 100 or 1000 DKK. But this is not the only expense for me, because [virksomhed2] is also not paying me the price for the transport service connected to the damaged order. It can be absolutely real case that at the end of the day I am at minus/loss. And this can be easily confirmed if [virksomhed2] accounts are reviewed. The next statement is also not correct: The essential factors that you are free in terms of working hours, including how many tasks, if any, are desired, the possibility of hiring staff to complete tasks and an unagreed notice of termination, are in the opinion of the Danish Tax Agency not sufficient to outweigh the above to such an extent that the remuneration can be qualified as income from self‐employment. [person1] simply says that the above factors are not sufficient to qualify my activity as self-employment. But there is a huge legal theory and practice which use exactly the same factors in order to distinguish employee relationships from self‐employment. And she is easily deleting that theory and practice and is writing her own theory. But she is not writing any examples to support her decision. And of course she is not able to provide examples because : There is no employer/employee relationship when the Employee decides himself how many hours per day will work without any pre‐notice to the employer. In [virksomhed6] for example I need to receive an approval for the shifts in which I want to work and I cannot work outside the shift’s hours. In [virksomhed2] I can work only 1 hour in the morning and only 1 hour in the evening without any notice or approval from [virksomhed2]. There is no employer/employee relationship when the Employee decides himself how many days in the month will work without any pre‐notice to the employer. All employers without exception know in advance how many workers they have every single day. [virksomhed2] never knows how many drivers will be on duty on a specific day or hour. There is no employer/employee relationship when the Employee is not informing the employer when he needs to be absent from work due to sickness. All employees without exception have the obligation to inform their employer in case of absence due to sickness. I do not have such obligation as a driver, providing services to [virksomhed2]. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employer doesn’t know how many employees he has at the beginning of the working day, in the middle and at the end of the working day. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employer cannot start the service because all employees are absent. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employer have to close the service unexpectedly before the end of the opening hours for his customers because all his employees left work earlier without any notice and any consequences for them. The workers in [virksomhed10] have to be on duty until 22:00 because everyone knows [virksomhed10] is open until 22:00. They cannot close the shop at 19:00 and go home without consequences for them. [virksomhed2] is open until 23:00 but the couriers are not obliged to be on duty until 23:00. If all couriers go home at 19:00 [virksomhed2] closes for that day and there are not any consequences for the drivers on the next day. There is no employer/employee relationship when the Employee decides himself which tasks to take and complete. The city bus driver cannot choose the stops where to stop and take passengers and the stops where he will not stop and will not take passengers. I can choose If I want to provide services to one customer or not. There is no employer/employee relationship when the Employee can reject as many tasks as he wants in the day without any consequences for him. If the city bus driver doesn’t take regularly the passengers which are waiting at the bus stops on his route, he will be sanctioned by his employer and maybe even fired. But if the lawyer rejects a customer, nobody sanctions him. If the mechanic rejects a customer‐nobody sanctions him. There is no employer/employee relationship where the employee start job without an interview and without seeing at least one representative of the employer and at least one direct manager or supervisor. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employee does not know his hourly wage when he start his shift in the morning. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employee is on duty for 3, 4 or more hours without being paid because the employer doesn’t need his services. If a courier delivering for [virksomhed6] is not having any tasks for 1 hour, he receives the full agreed hourly wage. If [person1] doesn’t have any task for 1 hour‐she receives the same hourly wage like if she has completed 1,2 or 3 tasks. But she is receiving the same wage even though she completes her tasks in a wrong way. I am paid only after I complete a delivery for [virksomhed2]. I have to deliver the right order to the right customer in order to receive a payment. This difference is so huge that only it itself is enough to say that the relationship with [virksomhed2] is not an employment relationship. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employee have to continue his shift after the normal 7 or 8‐hour working day because he didn’t receive enough tasks for 7 or 8 hours and have to work 15 or more hours in order to receive the same income as all other employees in Denmark receive for normal 7 or 8 hour working day. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employee can work for another employer during his shift at the first employer. The city bus driver can not interrupt his shift and cannot deviate from his route and deliver a package for [virksomhed4]. I can take 1 order from [virksomhed2] and 1 order from [virksomhed6] at the same time. There is no employer/employee relationship when the employee can make as many stops of the working process as he wish. I was working also as an employee in fish factory in Denmark. There all my actions were monitored by the manager on site. If I stopped to work even for one minute he was coming to me and reminding me that I have to work, not to speak. I was working also in newspaper distribution company in Denmark. There again all my movements were monitored by the manager. If for any reason I was slow in delivering the newspapers he was calling me on the phone and asking why I am working so slowly. I guess that [person1] also has a manager who request some reports for her work. Such supervision is typical for all employment relationships in the world. But it is missing in my relationship with [virksomhed2] company. The reason why it is missing is the different type of the relationship‐it is partnership and not employment. [person1] writes these factors are not enough. I am able to provide much more differences between the two types of the relationships but she does not mention how many are enough. As long as [person1] does not provide examples for the opposite statement, I cannot agree that my relationship with [virksomhed2] is the same like any other employer/employee relationship not only in Denmark but also in any other country in the world. [person1]s statement below is also not correct: The emphasis here is that it is [virksomhed2] that organizes and distributes tasks, that the contractual basis is so detailed that it is actually guidelines for the performance of the work, that [virksomhed2] actually instructs you as a courier partner on matters that are not stated in the contractual basis, and that [virksomhed2] exercises control and supervision over the performance of the work. The statement is not true because [virksomhed2] is just making the connection between me and my customers easier and faster. [virksomhed2] receives an order from a customer and split it to two different orders‐the first order is sent to the restaurant, which has to prepare the food. The second order is sent to the courier, who has to transport the food from the restaurant to the customer. [person1] does not explain why the person who receive the order for preparing the customer’s food is considered a company but the person who receive the order for delivering the customer’s food is not considered a company?! Both companies use the same [virksomhed2] platform to receive orders from different customers. Both companies are paying commissions to [virksomhed2] to use its platform. There are also a lot of small merchants that have ONLY orders from [virksomhed2] application ‐foodtrucks, bakers working at home kitchen. They don’t have other regular customers who are eating on site. [virksomhed2] does not control and supervise me! It is just the opposite‐there is absolutely no control and supervision from [virksomhed2]. [virksomhed2] does not control my working days, pauses, holidays, driving routes. There is no employer‐employee relationship where an external person can substitute you in the performing of your personal job duties. For example‐ If [person1] wants some days off she cannot delegate her responsibilities to her husband, sister or friend because this kind of relationship does not allow this change. [virksomhed2] does not control even the quality of my service. The control of the quality of the services is done by the customer like in any other company/customer relationship. The customer is the one who can be satisfied or not satisfied with the quality of my job. If the food is delivered in bad condition or not delivered, it is me who pay the cost of the food and NOT [virksomhed2]! [virksomhed2] is making only the payments between me and the customers. We cannot consider that [virksomhed2] is my only customer. [virksomhed2] is not using the delivered items. So my customers are all those different people who order goods from merchants and who use them. [virksomhed2] is only making the connection between people, merchants and drivers easier and faster. Moreover‐[virksomhed2] is not making any restrictions about my freedom to work for another companies-even for its competitors like [virksomhed6]. When I do not have [virksomhed2] orders I can work for [virksomhed6] and it is my right to choose if I want to work only for [virksomhed2] or for other companies as well. The situation is completely different with [virksomhed6] where there is an employment relationship. At [virksomhed6] the couriers have strictly determined places in the city where they have to stay and to be available to start a delivery every single minute from their shift. Because they have fixed hourly wages and have to be available immediately when an order is assigned to them. They cannot reject any order! There are no such restrictions in [virksomhed2]. In [virksomhed2] you can wait for orders where you want‐in the city center or 20 km outside the city. You can reject all orders during the day. [person1] continues to write in her decision: No deduction for expenses for clothing, food, telephony, bicycle, scooter, etc. However, it is noted that you cannot get a deduction for expenses for telephony (subscription expenses or purchase of a telephone), purchase/rental of a bicycle, scooter, car, etc., which are considered a private expense. It is also noted that no deduction can be obtained for any expenses for clothing, shoes, etc., since the income‐generating activity (delivering food) does not necessitate the purchase of special work clothes that are unsuitable for private use, which is the prerequisite for obtaining a deduction. This statement is completely wrong. The real employees use cars just because they are feeling more comfortable than using bus or train to reach their working place. [virksomhed2]‐courier cannot deliver with any kind of public or shared transport. Having a car is an absolutely mandatory requirement for performing the delivery services. The car and its maintenance is an expense that all other workers can save and they will get the same deduction like the couriers who cannot save these expenses. The application of this tax approach gives the regular employees a tax advantage and treats me as a courier in an unfair and discriminative way. [person1] continues with the following: We have estimated that a [virksomhed2] courier partner is active on average four hours a day, which is why a daily wage for a courier partner is DKK 700 (DKK 175 per four hours). Based on the above information, we have calculated that a CVR courier has worked for [virksomhed2] for an average of 105 days and has driven a total of 6,000 km in connection with deliveries for [virksomhed2]. Rounded off, the above corresponds to a mileage deduction of 10% of the salary. The above statement can be useful in some statistical reports but it is absolutely unacceptable to use such approach in determining my personal taxes. I do not agree that my taxes will be calculated on average and will be calculated with relation to someone’s other income and taxes! I have my own figures that can be easily estimated and it is logical that I insist my personal taxes to be calculated by using my own figures. When someone is earning 250 DKK per hour and I am earning 100 DKK per hour on average everyone earns 175 DKK but this is not my actual earnings. This approach doesn’t not make difference between couriers delivering with benzin and diesel cars and those with electric cars. The driver with electric car gets the same deduction like the one that spent more than 15% of his income only for fuel. With this approach my tax burden is 15 % higher and this leads to unfairness and high discrimination. [person1] is not taking into account the fact that there is already legal practice and published court decisions in other European and Scandinavian countries that are related to [virksomhed2]. Below are two recent court decisions which are public and [person1] is aware of them, but is not referring to them in her decision: “On 7 November 2023, the Administrative Court of [Sverige] delivered a judgement (court case no. [sag1]) regarding [virksomhed2]s appeal of the Swedish Work Environment Authority's decision. The Court found that the Couriers are not formally employed by [virksomhed2], are not guaranteed a minimum wage of any kind, and are not required to perform a minimum number of deliveries in order to use [virksomhed2]s application. The Couriers decide themselves when they want to work and may, without consequences, decline deliveries. Furthermore, they do not have a personal work obligation; they may, after agreement with [virksomhed2], have someone else perform their duties for them. The Couriers may, if they perform their delivery in a way that makes the food inedible, receive sanctions e.g. by a reduction of the remuneration and/or suspension from future deliveries. After an overall assessment, the Court found that [virksomhed2] should not be considered an employer in relation to their Couriers and, therefore, that [virksomhed2] did not have a work environment responsibility according to the Work Environment Act. In relation to the assessment regarding the Agency Work Act, the court referred to a recent court case from the Swedish Labour Court (AD 2022 no. 45) regarding [virksomhed11], concerning a worker who was temporarily assigned from a staffing company to [virksomhed11] as the user undertaking in accordance with the Agency Work Act. The Court noted that [virksomhed11] could lead and allocate work in a way that [virksomhed2] could not. The Court concluded that [virksomhed2] could not be considered a user undertaking and, thus, [virksomhed2] did not have a responsibility for the Couriers' work environment.” “On 21 February 2024 the administrative court of [Finland] ruled that [virksomhed2] couriers are self‐employed rather than employees” Denmark is not an isolated and closed country. It is part of Scandinavia and part of the European Union where all countries share same values and apply the common European legislation. This means that couriers of [virksomhed2] in Denmark should be treated by the Danish authorities in the same way like in the rest of Scandinavia and EU. The opposite means that the legal system in Denmark is completely different than the legal systems in the other parts of Scandinavia and EU. After changing my employment status, [person1] continues with the changes in the VAT reports: Your remuneration from [virksomhed2] is considered as described in point 1 for A‐income. According to the VAT Act, you are therefore not a taxable person, cf. section 3, subsection 1 of the VAT Act. VAT appears on the settlement documents that [virksomhed2] has issued to you as a courier in 2022, and [virksomhed2] has thus transferred your remuneration to you including VAT. Reference is made to the circumstances described in point 1.1. As described above, you are not a taxable person and, as a result, you are not covered by the provisions of the VAT Act. You are therefore also not covered by “anyone” in the provision in section 46, subsection 7 of the VAT Act that anyone who has charged VAT on an invoice must pay this VAT to the state. We therefore do not collect the VAT that [virksomhed2] has charged on your settlement documents. The sales VAT and input VAT that you have declared and settled in 2022 regarding [virksomhed2] on your CVR number must, as a rule, be reset to zero. This means that you cannot obtain a deduction for input VAT on any expenses you may have incurred in connection with the acquisition of income from [virksomhed2]. According to Danish law, the starting point is that the refund – in this case of VAT paid to the Danish Tax Agency – is made to the payer (you). However, reimbursement may instead be made to the customer ([virksomhed2]) of the delivered goods or services in cases where it would otherwise be impossible or disproportionately difficult for the customer to obtain a refund of the VAT via a civil law claim for recovery of amounts paid incorrectly against the supplier (you). See the judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C‐35/05, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH and The Legal Guide section D.A.11.1.4.3.2. Given the number of [virksomhed2] courier partners and the fact that many [virksomhed2] courier partners have been in Denmark for a shorter period and have left again, it is assessed that it is impossible or disproportionately difficult for [virksomhed2] to obtain a refund of the VAT via a civil law claim. It is therefore the assessment of the Danish Tax Agency that the amounts that you as a courier partner have declared and paid in the belief that they were VAT should reduce the claim that, pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, case C‐342/87, Genius Holding BV, arises with [virksomhed2] as a result of the lack of deduction. This means in concrete terms that [virksomhed2] will be credited with the VAT that you have declared and settled regarding your [virksomhed2] activities for 2022, provided that you do not have any arrears that need to be offset first. If your VAT regarding your [virksomhed2] activities has been declared and settled insufficiently, [virksomhed2] may file a civil recourse claim against you in order to recover the VAT that they have erroneously paid to you and that you have not settled. The above statements and assessments, made by [person1] are completely wrong because thе real facts are completely different than they are described and interpreted by her: I haven’t left Denmark and I am even still working for [virksomhed2] This means that [virksomhed2] s management is able to get in contact with me every single day since June 2023, when the changes were published. Because this is arranged in the agreement between me and [virksomhed2]: 11.7.1. This Agreement is governed by the laws of Denmark without regard to its principles and rules on conflict of laws. Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall primarily be settled through negotiations. If the negotiations for a settlement will not lead to unanimity in one (1) month after the beginning of negotiations, the Parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Danish courts. But I didn’t receive a single letter, chat or a phone call from their office to see that they are trying to claim back the VAT they have paid to me in 2022. It is well known that the option with civil law claim through the court is the last step in one dispute‐ when all other attempts and negotiations to solve a dispute between two parties are resultless. We cannot say that something is impossible difficult if we never try to do it. [virksomhed2] never tried to receive the VAT back from me with normal communication or through negotiations. It is weird if [virksomhed2] applied for help from the tax authorities before contacting me about this issue. [person1] also doesn’t mention in her decision about the receipt of such application from [virksomhed2]. If [virksomhed2] didn’t apply for help from the Danish tax authorities why [person1] is providing such help without being asked for it? And the reason why [virksomhed2] is not contacting me is because [virksomhed2] doesn’t have any disputes with me about the paid VAT. Just the opposite‐[virksomhed2] is suing the Danish tax agency and this is the second fact that is wrongly interpreted in the decision: The civil recourse claim is against the Danish tax agency and not against me [person1] is referring to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C‐35/05, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH in order to motivate her decision that “it is impossible or disproportionately difficult for [virksomhed2] to obtain a refund of the VAT via a civil law claim, because many [virksomhed2] courier partners have been in Denmark for a short period and have left again”. She cannot use one and the same court judgement in two completely opposite situations. In the case C‐35/05, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH the customer considers that they have paid by error the VAT to their supplier. While [virksomhed2] never considered that they have paid the VAT by error to its courier partners. Even more‐ even though [virksomhed2] didn’t agree with the tax decision they fully paid their increased tax obligations for VAT in 2023. And they are suing the Danish tax agency and are expecting to receive back the paid VAT from the Danish tax agency. But even if they lose the case against the Danish tax agency in the court, the losses will be compensated by their Parent company and not by the couriers. And their decision is officially published. This means that there is no need [person1] to make an assessment if it is impossible or disproportionally difficult for [virksomhed2] to obtain a refund of the VAT via a civil law claim, because the civil law claim against couriers has never been considered as a possible action by [virksomhed2] management and this fact is publicly known. And she is also aware of this fact. And of course such decision has its business logic‐It is not logical from business point of view to spend time and money for civil law claims when you have the right and the ability to take the money immediately and also without any time‐consuming and expensive court processes. Does the Tax authorities use a civil law claim to receive the money that Danish workers are not paying voluntarily? Or it simply withdraws as much as 90 % of their salaries without any court decisions. [virksomhed2] uses the same approach. [virksomhed2] has all the right and power to increase the commissions for the couriers (respectively to decrease the prices they are offering to their courier partners). Because the couriers are not protected in any way‐either by employment unions, or by any governmental organizations, ministry or agency. And of course when such protection is missing, [virksomhed2] is just decreasing the money, offered for receiving the delivery services, provided by the couriers. And it is understandable‐when one business has loss due to wrong tax decisions‐it is trying to cover that loss in the most easy and fastest possible way. Since June 2023 (after the decision) the commissions that [virksomhed2] takes from the couriers are being constantly increased‐in July 2023‐with 6 DKK, In September 2023‐with additional 4 DKK, in February 2024‐with additional 2.50 DKK and in December 2024‐with additional 1.50 DKK. Or totally with 14 DKK for a period of 20 months. [virksomhed2] is generating on average 22 000 orders for 1 day in Denmark. This means they are paying 308000 (22000x14)DKK less to their couriers for 1 day. In other words‐for 623 days (around February 10, 2025) [virksomhed2] will compensate the full amount of 192 000 000 DKK VAT, paid to the Danish Tax agency, through increased commissions and reduced prices for the delivery services. This is very easy and fast refund of the lost approx.192 000 000 DKK, which cannot be achieved through expensive and time‐consuming court claims. Could [virksomhed2] achieve even shorter period to compensate the loss? Of course they could because they had and still have all mechanism for increasing the commissions they receive from their merchant partners and courier partners. Therefore [person1] cannot state that it is impossible or disproportionately difficult for [virksomhed2] to obtain a refund of the VAT paid to the Danish tax agency in 2023! And of course the fact that many couriers have left Denmark is irrelevant for [virksomhed2]s ability to get the VAT amount back because they are taking the money from their current couriers. The full payment of the 192 000 000 VAT, made by [virksomhed2] in 2023 is another confirmation that they didn’t have any difficulties in this issue‐neither financial difficulties to pay the amount, nor legal difficulties to protect their rights in the court against those who are taking their money with wrong arguments. [virksomhed2] says that it is the Danish tax agency to which they paid VAT in error and not their current or former couriers. If the Danish state has received in full their VAT, then there is no explanation for [person1]s high determination in her protection of [virksomhed2]s money. I may disagree with the decrease in the price for my services but I can understand that this is a business solution for compensating the losses. But I cannot understand when the tax authorities are trying to use the same method like [virksomhed2] and to collect the taxes that they missed to collect from those who left Denmark by increasing the tax burden for those who didn’t left Denmark. And [person1] is doing exactly that. Instead of charging only 46 % income tax on VAT amount, she is taking 100 % of the received VAT‐90 090 DKK. This means I am paying my own 46 % income tax plus 46 % that she missed to collect from 1 other person who has left Denmark plus 8% that she missed to collect from a second person who has left Denmark. I can agree that it is impossible or disproportionally difficult for the tax agency to collect the taxes from those couriers who already have left Denmark but I do not agree to pay taxes for 3 persons. I insist to be treated in the same positive way like those who didn’t pay their VAT and at least not more negative than them. I am not responsible for other persons’ tax obligations! ? Then what is the relation between my own tax obligations and the tax obligations of all other courier partners of [virksomhed2], especially those who left Denmark? Why my taxes and deductions depend on other peoples’ actions? What will happen to me if her approach is accepted by another governmental organization in Denmark like the police for example? There are a lot of foreigners who made crimes in Denmark and has left the country. Should the police put me in the arrest because they weren’t able to catch the criminals before they left Denmark? There are also a lot of foreigners who received bank loans and left Denmark before paying back all money that they owe to the Danish banks. Should my bank charge me higher commissions in order to cover the losses caused by the bad payers? [person1] gives advantage to those who didn’t pay their duties by charging them only 46 % income tax on the unpaid VAT while the correct tax payers are charged 100 % of the paid VAT. In this way she is tolerating the evasion of taxes and directly saying that voluntary tax payment is leading to negative consequences for those who fully voluntarily has reported an paid their VAT obligations. By rejecting her decision, you will restore the fairness and the normal way of functioning of the tax system‐where the honest taxpayers are treated more positively than the bad taxpayers or at least not more negatively than them! In conclusion, [person1] is informing me that [virksomhed2] may raise a claim against me for the unpaid VAT. As I mentioned before, [virksomhed2] never considered to raise a claim against their courier partners. It is publicly announced that in case [virksomhed2] lose the case in the court they will be compensated by their Parent company. That’s why mentioning the information of possible future claim against me is completely irrelevant. At the same time she does not mention another very likely and relevant hypothesis‐the hypothesis where [virksomhed2] wins its claim against the Danish Tax Agency in the court? And such an outcome in favor of [virksomhed2] is very likely since there is already recent court practice in other European and Scandinavian countries on the same case where the court has ruled in favor of [virksomhed2]. [person1] is not providing any information what will happen in such situation. Will the Danish tax agency use the money, received from me as paid VAT, to reduce the claim that will arise for it if [virksomhed2] wins the case in the court? I believe that you as a part of the Danish legal system will not allow a situation where I am held responsible and have to pay for others’ wrong decisions. I therefore kindly ask you to reject the changes in my taxes for 2022 year, made by [person1] on 22.10.204. Because these changes are incorrect, unfair, highly discriminative and even premature as they are directly connected with the outcome of [virksomhed2]s case in the court which is still ongoing. (…)” Klagerens bemærkninger til Skattestyrelsens udtalelse Klageren har fremsat følgende bemærkninger til Skattestyrelsens udtalelse: ”Below you can find my comments I have been asked for in your letter d. 17.02.2025. They are given after [person1]s comments and are highlighted in blue . (…) I am a courier partner to [virksomhed2], but I am not working for [virksomhed2]s account and risk: (…) My comment: [virksomhed2] is not paying any compensation for fuel. Is it something typical in Denmark that employees to use their salaries for covering company expenses? (…) The statement that there is a maximum of 175 DKK for compensation claim is not true and this can be easily proven when [virksomhed2]s accounts are reviewed. In case of failure to complete a delivery, [virksomhed2] is deducting the full cost of the order-regardless of its value and regardless of the reason for failing to complete the delivery . For example-if I have to deliver sushi for 500 DKK and I fall down and smash the order due to ice on the road in front of the customer’s house, [virksomhed2] will deduct the full cost of 500 DKK and will not compensate the driving expenses as well. Thus it is quite possible that I end the day with negative result. And there isno such risk for the driver in [virksomhed3] for example who is receiving the full amount of the agreed salary even if he fails to deliver a given package. He can be fired but he is not charged for his mistake. It is the opposite in [virksomhed2]-couriers are not fired but they are financially responsible to the full amount of the damaged order. (…) There is very significant difference in the risk beared by me and a regular employee in case of car break. If the regular employee’s car breaks down he can reach his working place by the public transport and continue to work. His salary is not impacted by the car break in any way and with any percentage. If my car breaks down then I am not able to generate income for the time of its reparation. If the repair works last 5 days my income will be decreased with 25% (if 20 working days). If the repair works last 10 days my income will be decreased with 50%. That’s why the statement that “ this is not a risk that deviates significantly from the expenses that an employee could have for transport or business travel for an employer” is not correct. (…) Are there any other employers in Denmark who are not paying holiday money and sick leave money to their employees without any sanctions by the state authorities? Are there any other employees in Denmark who are paying all kinds of regular labour taxes without receiving any kind of labour benefits that are directly connected with the tax payments-such holiday payment, sick leave payment, pension and etc.? (…) The regular periodical payment for completed services is not typical only for the relationships between employer and employee. There are for example many lawyers and accountants that are providing legal and accounting services to other companies with supscription for their services. They are receiving their fees periodically but this fact doesn’t change their self-employment status. (…) As I already mentioned my liability in case of damaged orders is not limited to a maximum of 175 DKK. [virksomhed2] deducts the full cost of the damaged order regardless of the fact if the order is damaged intentionally or not. (…) The statement that couriers have no influence on which tasks are assigned is correct if speaking for couriers that are working for [virksomhed6] for example. They really have to complete all tasks that are coming in their working shift. But such statement is not correct when speaking for [virksomhed2]. [virksomhed2] is not assigning any task to me. They are offering the available tasks they have and they are not assigning them to me. I can complete a delivery only if I want. Even the lawyer has less freedom in choosing and completing tasks that are coming from his client. If his client asks the lawyer to make a contract he cannot refuse constantly because the client will tear the contract. I can decline all orders that [virksomhed2] offers to me in a specific day without any negative consequences. [virksomhed2] has requirement for keeping hygiene when delivering for them, but this requirement cannot be considered like guidance and instruction from an employer. Hygiene must be kept in all types of relationships and it is not a feature of an employment relationship only. Especially since 2020 when the whole population on the Earth was being instructed every day to keep good hygiene. The statement that [virksomhed2] is able to instruct me to wait at the address when the customer is not at home is not true. I have the same communication options to reach the customer like [virksomhed2] support agents. And I am able myself to arrange with the customer where to leave the food. Of course I can choose to wait for the customer to get home but it is my decision and not an instruction and guidance from [virksomhed2]. [virksomhed2] is not instructing even where to be my working place. I can deliver in [by1] in the morning, in [by2] in the afternoon and in [by3] in the evening. And when [person1] is easily saying that this is typical employment relationship I expect that she can present one or more examples of employees who can change their working place whenever they wish. Can the bus driver in [by1] decide to drive the routes in [by3] for some days? Can the cashier in [virksomhed10]-[by1] decide to work for 3 hours in [virksomhed10]-[by4] and again in [by1]? (…) It is correct that I can deliver with bike, scooter and even on foot. But only if I work part-time for not more than 4-5 hours daily. In fact I am working more than 12-13 hours daily. In addition-some orders are delivered to more than 40 or even 50 km from the city center and it is impossible to use bike or scooter. Some routes are even forbidden for bikes and scooters as well. In addition-nobody will use my services again if they wait 2 hours for pizza. If I am not using a car this will reflect in more than 50 % decrease of my yearly income. The income of the regular employees is not depending on the typeof the vehicle used by them to reach their working place. The regular employee can go to work with monthly expense for only 800 dkk for transportation card and will receive the same income like if he spends for car maintenance. I cannot keep the same income if I deliver with bike or on foot. That’s why the statement that my transportation expenses do not differ significantly from the expenses of the regular employee is not correct. (…) I haven’t sent additional documents because I am appealing the decision. I will send the document when the decision is confirmed. (…) I have to mention again that I have not left Denmark and currently I am still working for [virksomhed2]. [virksomhed2] doesn’t have a dispute with me with regards to VAT. [virksomhed2] has a dispute with the Danish Tax Agency for VAT and there is an ongoing case in the court for this matter. [virksomhed2]s management has already announced that they will be compensated by their Parent company in case of a loss in the court. [virksomhed2] is not asking the Danish Tax Agency for financial or legal help. From all 5 sentences above it is clear that there is no even one prerequisite for the Danish Tax Agency to refer to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C-35/05, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH in order to motivate her decision that “it is impossible or disproportionately difficult for [virksomhed2] to obtain a refund of the VAT via a civil law claim, because many [virksomhed2] courier partners have been in Denmark for a short period and have left again”. The assessment if it is difficult or easy for [virksomhed2] to obtain a refund of the VAT via a civil law claim is irrelevant because [virksomhed2] doesn’t have dispute with their current and former couriers. When there is no dispute, the civil law claim is not needed and it doesn’t matter if it is difficult or easy to use it. This means that the above assessment should never have been done. The statement that “the amounts that you as a courier partner have declared and paid in the belief that they were VAT should reduce the claim that, pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, case C-342/87, Genius Holding BV, arises with [virksomhed2] as a result of the lack of deduction” is not correct. [virksomhed2] paid all its tax obligations in 2023 so they do not have any outstanding claim which will be reduced with the amount of the Vat paid by me and kept by the Danish tax agency. The only claim that this amount can reduce is the claim that may arise with the Danish tax agency if [virksomhed2] wins the court case. I do not agree to cover the money that the Danish tax agency will owe to [virksomhed2] in such hypothesis. (…) [person1]s statement that “The Danish Tax Agency has no comments on [virksomhed2]s business model, including fees or whether [virksomhed2] will possibly file a civil recourse claim in relation to the VAT payment that the couriers have stated but not settled” differs from her actual actions. In fact she is commenting in very big details the [virksomhed2]s business model and takes very good care for [virksomhed2]s finances-she has analyzed even how many couriers have been working for [virksomhed2], for how long time and whether they have left Denmark or no. She is even assessing the level of difficulty for [virksomhed2] tocollect money through court claims without being part of [virksomhed2] managment. And even when [virksomhed2] management has publicly announced that they do not have dispute with their courier partners. (…) The statement is not correct because [person1] is refusing to return the VAT to me because many other couriers have left Denmark. (…) Formally I am not a party in the case between [virksomhed2] and the Danish Tax agency. But in fact I am involved in the case because the VAT that is kept and not returned to me is the same VAT which is subject of the dispute between [virksomhed2] and the Tax agency. Actually [person1]s decision somewhat renders the case in the court. Because [virksomhed2] is receiving the disputed VAT regardless of the case outcome. But the payer of this VAT is not the Danish tax agency but me because the tax agency uses the VAT received from my company.” Landsskatterettens afgørelse I indkomståret 2022 oppebar klageren indtægter som såkaldt kurérpartner for [virksomhed2]. Sagens hovedspørgsmål er, om klageren har oppebåret disse indtægter som lønmodtager eller som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende. Hvis klageren har oppebåret indtægterne som lønmodtager, angår sagen opgørelsen af dennes A-indkomst og befordringsfradrag efter ligningslovens § 9 C. Selvstændig erhvervsdrivende vs. lønmodtager Retsgrundlaget Selvstændige erhvervsdrivende kan i de skattepligtige indtægter, jf. statsskattelovens § 4, fratrække driftsudgifter, det vil sige de udgifter som i året løb er anvendt til at erhverve, sikre og vedligeholde indkomsten, jf. statsskattelovens § 6, stk. 1, litra a. Da indkomst ved selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed er personlig indkomst i henhold til personskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, kan driftsudgifterne fratrækkes heri i medfør af personskattelovens § 3, stk. 2. Det indebærer, at driftsudgifterne får fuld fradragsværdi ved skatteberegningen. Lønmodtagerindkomst er A-indkomst, hvori arbejdsgiveren efter reglerne herom i kildeskatteloven skal indeholde A-skat og arbejdsmarkedsbidrag. [virksomhed2] har ikke indeholdt A-skat og arbejdsmarkedsbidrag i klagerens vederlag i 2022. Ved opgørelsen af den skattepligtige indkomst for lønmodtagere kan i medfør af ligningslovens § 9, stk. 1, fradrages udgifter i forbindelse med udførelsen af det indtægtsgivende arbejde i det omfang, de samlede fradragsberettigede udgifter overstiger et grundbeløb på 5.500 kr. (2010-niveau). For 2022 udgjorde grundbeløbet 6.600 kr. Fradraget for lønmodtagerudgifter sker i den skattepligtige indkomst. Det indebærer, at udgifterne ved skatteberegningen har mindre fradragsværdi end selvstændige erhvervsdrivendes driftsudgifter, der som anført fratrækkes i den personlige indkomst. Kriterierne for afgrænsningen mellem tjenesteforhold og selvstændigt erhvervsdrivende inden for skattelovgivningens område sker efter de kriterier, som angivet i pkt. B.3.1.1. i cirkulære nr. 129 af 4. juli 1994 om personskatteloven, jf. bl.a. Højesterets dom af 9. maj 1996, offentliggjort i U.1996.1027H. Efter cirkulæret anses som udgangspunkt en person for lønmodtager, hvis vedkommende modtager vederlag for personligt arbejde i tjenesteforhold efter hvervgiverens anvisninger og for dennes regning og risiko. Selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed er kendetegnet ved, at der for egen regning og risiko udøves en virksomhed af økonomisk karakter med det formå at opnå et overskud. Ved vurderingen af, om der er tale om selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, kan der ifølge cirkulæret blandt andet lægges vægt på, om indkomstmodtageren tilrettelægger, leder, fordeler og fører tilsyn med arbejdet uden anden instruktion fra hvervgiveren end den, der eventuelt følger af den afgivne ordre. Der kan derudover lægges vægt på, om hvervgiverens forpligtigelse over for indkomstmodtageren er begrænset til det enkelte ordreforhold, om indkomstmodtageren påtager sig en selvstændig økonomisk risiko, om indkomsten oppebæres fra en ubestemt kreds af hvervgivere, og om indkomsten afhænger af et eventuelt overskud. Som udgangspunkt anses en person for lønmodtager, hvis vedkommende modtager vederlag for personligt arbejde i tjenesteforhold efter hvervgiverens anvisninger og for dennes regning og risiko. Ved vurderingen af, om der er tale om et tjenesteforhold, kan der blandt andet lægges vægt på, om hvervgiveren har en almindelig adgang til at fastsætte generelle eller konkrete instrukser for arbejdets udførelse, om indkomstmodtageren udelukkende eller i overvejende grad har samme hvervgiver, om der mellem hvervgiveren og indkomstmodtageren er indgået aftale om løbende arbejdsydelse, om arbejdstiden er fastsat af hvervgiveren, om indkomstmodtageren har ret til opsigelsesvarsel, om hvervgiveren afholder udgifterne i forbindelse med udførelsen af arbejdet, samt om indkomstmodtageren anses for lønmodtager ved praktisering af ferieloven, funktionærloven mv. I tvivlstilfælde må afgrænsningen ifølge cirkulæret ske på grundlag af en samlet bedømmelse af de enkelte forhold mellem hvervgiver og hvervtager. Af § 20 stk. 1, 1-3 pkt., i bekendtgørelse nr. 839 af 24. juni 2025 om kildeskat fremgår: ”Arbejdsmarkedsbidragspligtig indkomst, for hvilken der skal foretages indeholdelse, samt A-indkomst, der kommer til udbetaling efter udløbet af den pågældende indtjeningsperiode, indkomstbeskattes i det indkomstår, hvori udbetalingen finder sted, jf. dog stk. 2 og 3. Har udbetaling ikke fundet sted på et tidspunkt, der ligger 6 måneder efter, at indkomstmodtageren har erhvervet endelig ret til den pågældende indkomst, er beløbet dog indkomstskattepligtigt på dette tidspunkt, jf. dog stk. 4-10. 2. pkt. gælder ikke A-indkomst og arbejdsmarkedsbidragspligtig indkomst, der udbetales af den indeholdelsespligtiges konkursbo.” Landsskatterettens begrundelse og resultat Lønmodtager eller selvstændig erhvervsdrivende Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt klagerens indkomst fra [virksomhed2] i indkomståret 2022 er lønmodtagerindkomst eller oppebåret ved selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed skal bedømmes på grundlag af standardkontraktgrundlaget af 2. november 2020. Ifølge kontrakten, der er benævnt ”Service Agreement”, skal klageren bringe mad og varer ud fra restauranter og andre udbydere fra [virksomhed2] platform til [virksomhed2]s kunder. Det fremgår af kontraktens pkt. 3.1, at den er gældende, indtil den opsiges. Kontrakten angår således ikke en enkeltstående arbejdsydelse, men en løbende integreret del af [virksomhed2]s almindelige virksomhedsdrift, som kan bringes til ophør ved opsigelse, jf. Højesterets dom af 31. marts 1999, offentliggjort som U.1999.1050H, og Østre Landsrets dom af 30. april 2009, offentliggjort som SKM2009.327.ØLR. Kontrakten indeholder en omfangsrig og detaljeret beskrivelse af, hvordan klageren skal udføre sin arbejdsydelse. Klagerens vederlag blev ifølge appendix 1 til kontrakten beregnet efter antal udførte leveringer og afstandstillæg, det vil sige som provision, der blev udbetalt to gange månedligt, jf. kontraktens pkt. 2.3. Klageren har ikke fremlagt dokumentation for, at han har afholdt udgifter, der i henhold til statsskattelovens § 6, stk. 1, litra a, er medgået til at erhverve, sikre og vedligeholde den omhandlede indkomst fra [virksomhed2], herunder ikke for afholdelse af udgifter, der i art eller omfang ligger væsentlig udover, hvad der er sædvanligt i lønmodtagerforhold. Klageren havde i indkomståret 2022 ikke andre hvervgivere end [virksomhed2]. På dette grundlag må klagerens indtægter fra [virksomhed2] i indkomståret 2022 efter den samlede bedømmelse, der skal foretages, anses for oppebåret af klageren som lønmodtager. Den omstændighed, at det i kontraktens pkt. (c) er anført, at der ikke er tale om et ansættelsesforhold mellem klageren og [virksomhed2], at [virksomhed2] ikke har indeholdt A-skat og arbejdsmarkedsbidrag i udbetalingerne til klageren og det, klageren i øvrigt har anført, kan ikke føre til et andet resultat. Landsskatteretten stadfæster derfor Skattestyrelsens afgørelse på dette punkt. A-indkomst Klageren skal til afgiftsmyndighederne indbetale den ”salgsmoms” på 125.418 kr., der er anført i afregningsbilagene, jf. Landsskatterettens afgørelse af 27. juni 2025, offentliggjort som SKM2025.663.LSR og Landsskatterettens afgørelse i den sammenholdte momssag med sagsnr. [sag2]. Klageren har således ikke i henhold til statsskattelovens § 4 erhvervet ret til ”salgsmomsen” og skal derfor ikke beskattes heraf. Da klageren har oppebåret indtægterne fra [virksomhed2] i 2022 som lønmodtager, og dermed som A-indkomst, skal beskatningen ske på udbetalingstidspunktet, jf. § 20 i bekendtgørelse om kildeskat. Klageren har ikke fremlagt udgiftsbilag, hvorfor der ikke kan gives et fradrag i medfør af ligningslovens § 9, stk. 1, 1. pkt. Landsskatteretten finder, at klageren er berettiget til befordringsfradrag i medfør af ligningslovens § 9 C, jf. herom nedenfor. Klagerens A-indkomst fra [virksomhed2] i indkomståret 2022 udgør således det omhandlende vederlag på 501.976 kr. ekskl. ”salgsmoms”. Landsskatteretten nedsætter derfor Skattestyrelsens ansættelse af klagerens A-indkomst fra 537.304 kr. med 35.328 kr. til 501.976 kr. Overskud af virksomhed Klagerens indtægter fra [virksomhed2] i indkomståret 2022 er som anført oppebåret som lønmodtager og ikke som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende. I overensstemmelse med Skattestyrelsens afgørelse udgør klagerens overskud af virksomhed for indkomståret 2022 derfor 0 kr. Landsskatteretten stadfæster således Skattestyrelsens afgørelse på dette punkt. Befordringsfradrag Retsgrundlag Det fremgår af ligningslovens § 9, stk. 1: ”Ved opgørelsen af den skattepligtige indkomst for lønmodtagere fradrages udgifter i forbindelse med udførelsen af det indtægtsgivende arbejde i det omfang, de samlede fradragsberettigede udgifter overstiger et grundbeløb på 5.500 kr. (2010-niveau). Grundbeløbet reguleres efter personskattelovens § 20. Befordringsudgifter omfattet af § 9 B eller statsskattelovens § 6, litra a, kan dog ikke fradrages ved indkomstopgørelsen, jf. dog § 9 B, stk. 4.” Af ligningslovens § 9 B, stk. 4, fremgår: ”Stk. 4. Befordringsgodtgørelse medregnes ikke ved indkomstopgørelsen, såfremt godtgørelsen ikke overstiger satser, som fastsættes af Skatterådet. Udbetaler arbejdsgiveren ikke hel eller delvis skattefri godtgørelse, kan fradrag for befordring foretages efter § 9 C. Uanset 2. pkt. kan lønmodtagere fradrage befordringsudgifter som nævnt i stk. 1, hvis de i forbindelse med kundeopsøgende aktiviteter afholder udgifter til befordring, der vedrører flere arbejdsgivere på én gang. Fradrag efter 3. pkt. er betinget af, at eventuelle befordringsgodtgørelser efter 1. pkt. medregnes ved indkomstopgørelsen.” Det fremgår af ligningslovens § 9 C, stk. 1 og 2: ”Ved opgørelsen af den skattepligtige indkomst kan fradrag for befordring frem og tilbage mellem sædvanlig bopæl og arbejdsplads foretages med et beløb, som beregnes på grundlag af den normale transportvej ved bilkørsel efter en kilometertakst, der fastsættes af Skatterådet. Ved fastsættelsen af denne takst lægges udgiften til befordring med bil til grund. Hvis den skattepligtige på grund af de givne geografiske forhold, tidsforbrug og økonomisk rimelighed på en del af eller hele strækningen mellem sædvanlig bopæl og arbejdsplads må anvende færgetransport, ruteflytransport el.lign., beregnes fradraget for denne befordring som den faktiske, dokumenterede udgift. Stk. 2. Fradrag kan dog kun foretages for den del af befordringen pr. arbejdsdag, der overstiger 24 kilometer.” Landsskatterettens begrundelse og resultat [virksomhed2] har i indkomståret 2022 ikke udbetalt godtgørelse til klagerens befordring til udbringning af mad og varer for [virksomhed2]. Klageren er derfor berettiget til befordringsfradrag efter ligningslovens § 9 C, jf. ligningslovens § 9 B, stk. 4, 2. pkt. Skattestyrelsen har foretaget en skønsmæssig opgørelse af klagerens befordringsfradrag svarende til 10 % af det opnåede vederlag. Skønnet er foretaget på baggrund af en gennemsnitlig [virksomhed2] kurérpartners arbejdsdage og kørselsmønster, samt indtægt. Landsskatteretten finder, at der ikke er grundlag for at tilsidesætte Skattestyrelsens skøn over befordringsfradrag på 50.198 kr., svarende til 10 % af det opnåede vederlag ekskl. moms fra [virksomhed2] på 501.976 kr. Herved er lagt vægt på, at skønnet er foretaget ud fra data modtaget af [virksomhed2] angående en gennemsnitlig kurérpartners indtægt, kørselsmønster og timeløn. Yderligere er der lagt vægt på, at klageren endvidere ikke har fremlagt materiale, der kan begrunde et mere retvisende skøn. Landsskatteretten stadfæster Skattestyrelsens afgørelse vedrørende dette punkt.