Kurérpartner anset for lønmodtager og pålagt fakturamoms

Journalnr. 25-0007753 Klagepunkt Skattestyrelsens afgørelse Indehaverens opfattelse Landsskatterettens afgørelse Retlig kvalifikation Lønmodtager Selvstændig erhvervsdrivende Lønmodtager Momstilsvar 0 kr. 102.699 kr. 125.418 kr. Faktiske oplysninger Det fremgår af Det Centrale Virksomhedsregister, CVR, at [klager] (herefter indehaveren) 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 den påklagede afgørelse, at indehaveren for afgiftsperioderne i 2022 har angivet følgende momstilsvar: Periode 1. kvartal 2. kvartal 3. kvartal 4. kvartal I alt Salgsmoms 30.440 kr. 31.714 kr. 34.157 kr. 29.187 kr. 125.498 kr. Købsmoms 2.188 kr. 4.466 kr. 5.131 kr. 11.014 kr. 22.799 kr. Momstilsvar 28.252 kr. 27.248 kr. 29.026 kr. 18.173 kr. 102.699 kr. Skattestyrelsen har oplyst, at indehaveren har en restance på 12.609 kr. hos Gældsstyrelsen for ikke afregnet moms for perioden 1. oktober 2022-31. december 2022. Indehaveren har i 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 indehaveren til brug for opgørelsen af indehaverens vederlag optjent som kurérpartner. Af data fra [virksomhed2] fremgår, at indehaveren har optjent følgende vederlag 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 indehaveren i perioden 1. januar-31. december 2022 har haft andre hvervgivere end [virksomhed2]. Skattestyrelsen har anset indehaveren for at være lønmodtager i forhold til vederlaget fra [virksomhed2]. Skattestyrelsen har herefter nedsat indehaverens salgsmoms og købsmoms til 0 kr. for 2022 og beskattet indehaveren af differencen mellem indehaverens afregnede moms og momsen på afregningsbilagene fra [virksomhed2]. Beløbet er opgjort således: Du har fra [virksomhed2] modtaget i alt som salgsmoms 125.418 kr. Heraf ses du at have afregnet i alt (Som [virksomhed2] godskrives) 90.090 kr. Du beskattes af manglende afregnet moms med i alt 35.328 kr. Skattestyrelsen har godskrevet [virksomhed2] den af indehaveren allerede afregnede moms, svarende til 90.090 kr. Af standardkontraktgrundlaget, benævnt ”Courier Partner 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 nedsat indehaverens salgsmoms og købsmoms til 0 kr. for afgiftsperioderne i 2022. Ændringerne skyldes, at Skattestyrelsen har anset indehaveren for at være lønmodtager og dermed ikke en afgiftspligtig person i relation til indkomsterhvervelsen fra [virksomhed2]. Skattestyrelsen har som begrundelse bl.a. anført: “ Moms af vederlag fra [virksomhed2] (…) 2.3. Vores begrundelse og bemærkninger Dit vederlag fra [virksomhed2] anses som beskrevet i punkt 1 for A-indkomst. I henhold til momsloven er du dermed ikke en afgiftspligtig person jf. momslovens § 3, stk. 1. Der fremgår moms på de afregningsbilag, som [virksomhed2] i 2022 har udstedt til dig som kurer, og [virksomhed2] har således overført dit vederlag til dig inklusive moms. Der henvises til de forhold, der er beskrevet i punkt 1.1. Som beskrevet i ovenstående er du ikke en momspligtig person, og som følge heraf, er du ikke omfattet af momslovens bestemmelser. Du er derfor heller ikke omfattet af ”enhver” i bestemmelsen i momslovens § 46, stk. 7 om, at enhver, som har påført moms på en faktura, skal indbetale denne moms til staten. Vi opkræver derfor ikke den moms, som [virksomhed2] har påført dine afregningsbilag. Den salgsmoms og købsmoms, du vedrørende [virksomhed2] har angivet og afregnet i 2022 på dit CVR nr., skal som udgangspunkt nulstilles. Det betyder, at du ikke kan opnå fradrag for købsmoms på de udgifter, du eventuelt har haft i forbindelse med indtægtserhvervelsen fra [virksomhed2]. Efter dansk ret er udgangspunktet, at tilbagebetaling – i dette tilfælde af indbetalt moms til Skattestyrelsen - sker til indbetaleren (dig). Tilbagebetaling kan dog i stedet ske til aftageren ([virksomhed2]) 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 (dig). 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, du som kurerpartner 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, du har angivet og afregnet vedrørende dine [virksomhed2]-aktiviteter for 2022, under forudsætning af at du ikke har restancer, der skal modregnes først. Hvis din moms vedrørende dine [virksomhed2]-aktiviteter er angivet og afregnet i utilstrækkelig grad, kan [virksomhed2] rette et civilretligt regreskrav mod dig, med henblik på at få tilbagebetalt den moms, de fejlagtigt har udbetalt til dig, og som du ikke har afregnet. Skattestyrelsens forslag til ændringer Salgsmoms Moms på afregningsbilag udgør ifølge oplysninger fra [virksomhed2] i alt 125.418 kr. Som beskrevet i ovenstående skal den moms, du har angivet og afregnet vedrørende [virksomhed2] i 2022, som udgangspunkt nulstilles. På baggrund af de forhold, der er beskrevet ovenfor, foreslår Skattestyrelsen, at der reguleres følgende beløb: Salgsmoms (tabel udeladt) Salgsmoms er herefter ansat til 0 kr. Købsmoms (tabel udeladt) Købsmomsen er herefter ansat til 0 kr. Som beskrevet i ovenstående bliver [virksomhed2] godskrevet den moms, du har angivet og afregnet vedrørende dine [virksomhed2]-aktiviteter for 2022, under forudsætning af at du ikke har restancer, der skal modregnes først. Hvis du i utilstrækkelig grad har angivet og afregnet den moms, du har modtaget fra [virksomhed2], anser Skattestyrelsen den manglende afregnede moms som en skattepligtig indtægt i medfør af statsskattelovens § 4: (tabel udeladt) Skattestyrelsens afgørelse Skattestyrelsen har den 4. juni 2024 modtaget dine indsigelser til vores forslag af 16. maj 2024: And now I will give you my comments and questions on the second topic and namely the VAT that I have paid. The reason why you received 90 090 DKK VAT from me is because I have submitted VAT reports for my company for 2022. I have original legal sales invoices! Currently we are in 2024 year and you are somehow deciding to delete my VAT reports and my sales invoices for 2022 but keeping the money received on basis of the VAT in those invoices. The right action in this case should be full refund of the paid VAT to me. If [virksomhed2] claims it from me then this issue should be resolved by the court. It will be strange if you try to avoid a court decision in one possible future court process between 2 companies and just to support the first company ([virksomhed2]) with 90 090 DKK by taking this money from the second company (me). Acting in this way means 2 things. Answer: The Danish tax agency does not question that VAT appears on the invoices that [virksomhed2] in agreement with you in 2022 has issued to you as a courier. After an assessment, however, it is our opinion that you should be considered an employee in terms of the income you have received from [virksomhed2] in the income year of 2022 (and onwards) As such, according to the danish VAT Act (section 3, subsection 1 (momsloven §3 stk. 1)), you are therefore not a VAT-taxable person with regards to your income from [virksomhed2]. We therefore do not charge the VAT that [virksomhed2] has applied on your invoices. As a result, the output tax (salgsmoms) and input tax (købsmoms) regarding [virksomhed2] that you have declared and settled in 2022 on your CVR-number must be zeroed. This means that you cannot obtain a deduction regarding input tax VAT on the expenses you may have had in connection with you income activities on [virksomhed2]. Normally, in such cases, VAT refunds would be refunded to you as a courier. But in the case of [virksomhed2], the refunds regarding output tax will be transferred to [virksomhed2], because we have assessed that it will be ‘impossible or disproportionately difficult’ for [virksomhed2] to reclaim the VAT amount - which they have transferred to their courier partners - through a civil law claim regarding the recovery of erroneously paid amounts to their [virksomhed2] courier partners. This means that we credit [virksomhed2] the output tax (salgsmoms/VAT) you have declared and settled regarding your [virksomhed2]-activities in 2022, on the condition that you have no arrears (restancer) that must be paid first. In other words we do not keep anything, but the settled VAT will be transferred to [virksomhed2], not you as a courier. If you have insufficiently declared and settled the VAT amount you have received from [virksomhed2], they can make a civil law recourse claim against you, with the objective of getting back the VAT that they have erroneously paid to you and which you have not settled. If you have declared your output tax regarding the [virksomhed2] VAT insufficiently, the unsettled amount is considered a considered a taxable income. This is with legal basis in section 4 of the Danish State Tax Act (statsskatteloven § 4). If you receive a civil law VAT-recourse claim from [virksomhed2], and you pay back the amount that they claim, your taxable income must be reduced accordingly, if you were previously taxed as a result of insufficiently declared VAT. In that case, you must submit documentation in the form of the recourse claim (showing the amount) and documentation for the amount transferred from you to [virksomhed2]. 1. You have decided in advance that [virksomhed2] will raise a claim against me in front of the court. I am not sure that they will take such decision. Because they can choose another very easy way to compensate their losses. For example they can decrease the price per km which is paid to me as a courier. This is one very possible solution and actually they have already started to decrease the prices in the last 2 years. Answer: No, we have not. The letter states that If you receive a civil law VAT-recourse claim from [virksomhed2], and you pay back the amount that they claim, your taxable income must be reduced accordingly, if you were previously taxed as a result of insufficiently declared VAT. In that case, you must submit documentation in the form of the recourse claim (showing the amount) and documentation for the amount transferred from you to [virksomhed2]. 2. You have decided in advance that [virksomhed2] will win a possible court claim. I do not agree with such treatment of this case because only the court can decide who is the winner in one court case. In order to win, [virksomhed2] has to present strong arguments and the argument that the VAT was paid by mistake is not a valid argument. Just the opposite-VAT was paid completely consciously more than 1 year. And I have written correspondence from which is clear that the VAT was not paid by error. Even more-[virksomhed2] is the company who insisted on this model of cooperation. I do not agree that international company with billions DKK annual income and own legal advisory team have more difficulties to protect its rights than a single courier with 110 DKK hourly income. But my legal cost will be disproportionally big if I have to protect my rights from the actions of the tax agency and then again from possible claim by [virksomhed2]. On the other side-[virksomhed2] will receive 90 090 DKK immediately and without any legal costs and time waste thanks to the help provided by the state. And my last comment-the part of the reported VAT that is already paid you consider as a tax and the other part that is not paid yet you consider as an income. With such a decision you are directly saying that the evasion of taxes is the better and positive action. Unfortunately I chose the other way-to report correctly my tax because wasn’t aware that this action can cause me future negative subsequences! Because if all my VAT was not reported or reported but not paid and we apply your proposal then you will consider it like my income and I have to pay only 46% of the unpaid VAT /the income tax percentage/ and I will keep the rest and will be waiting if at any time in the future [virksomhed2] will decide to claim it back from me/. Currently 90 090 DKK VAT is paid voluntarily by me in 2022 and you want to keep not 46% but 100% of the amount. I find it quite strange and illogical that I will be treated by the state authorities in a worse way just because I have reported honestly and paid on time the VAT on my sales invoices. Maybe such treatment is legal, but it is unexpected for me. A I said in the beginning that you can choose to treat me in the proposed negative way because you have this opportunity. But if you want to treat me and [virksomhed2] equally then you have to leave the decision about who has made wrong actions and wrong decisions and who has to pay for them to be taken by the Danish civil court. That’s why I believe that the most fair solution is that my tax reports for 2022 remain unchanged. But If you insist on your decision to delete my company activity with past date, then there is no reason( VAT reports are already deleted) to keep the VAT and the amount should be refunded to me or at least treated as an income tax paid by me and not as an income. Because the economic nature of this amount is tax, it is not an income! If you treat it as income it means that I have made donation to you ([virksomhed2]) and it was not my intention when I paid it completely voluntarily. There are many organizations in Denmark that need financial support and who needs your donations ([organisation1], organizations that support people in their fight with cancer and many others) but [virksomhed2] is not among them! But strong international company like [virksomhed2] can easily afford to hire some of the many inkaso companies operating in Denmark to collect any possible claims for them and doesn’t need help from the Danish state in this process! Answer: Your inquiry does not add any new information to the case on the present basis, and you have therefore received this final letter of decision where the changes will be in accordance with the previously submitted letter of proposition. Shortly after you have received this letter of decision, you can see your revised 2022 annual tax notice at skat.dk with the applied changes. After receiving this letter of decision, the case will be closed. If you wish to appeal the decision, you can find instructions on how to file in a complaint on page 21 in this letter of the decision. 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 Skatteankestyrelsens klagesagsbehandling har Skattestyrelsen den 13. februar 2025 udtalt: ”(…) 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] Support 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. ” Indehaverens opfattelse Indehaveren har fremsat påstand om, at ændringerne af momstilsvaret for afgiftsperioderne i 2022 skal tilbageføres. 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 [virksomhed3] use their own cars but they are receiving 3.79 DKK for every km driven for [virksomhed3]. And this money is not taxable. This means that [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed4], [virksomhed5], [virksomhed6] and any other service provider with request to decrease their prices. The truth is that I cannot address [virksomhed4] 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 [virksomhed7] 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 [virksomhed8] 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 [virksomhed3]‐their couriers are their employees and they receive money for every hour on duty regardless if they have orders or no. This means that [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed7] have to be on duty until 22:00 because everyone knows [virksomhed7] 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 [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed9]. I can take 1 order from [virksomhed2] and 1 order from [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed3]. When I do not have [virksomhed2] orders I can work for [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed3] where there is an employment relationship. At [virksomhed3] 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. [...]) 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 [virksomhed10], concerning a worker who was temporarily assigned from a staffing company to [virksomhed10] as the user undertaking in accordance with the Agency Work Act. The Court noted that [virksomhed10] 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. (…)” Indehaverens bemærkninger til Skattestyrelsens udtalelse Indehaveren har den 2. marts 2025 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. (…) My comment: [virksomhed2] is not paying any compensation for fuel. Is it something typical in Denmark the 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 [virksomhed8] 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 [virksomhed3] 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 [virksomhed7]-[by1] decide to work for 3 hours in [virksomhed7]-[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 2022 oppebar indehaveren indtægter som en såkaldt kurérpartner for [virksomhed2]. Sagens hovedspørgsmål er, om indehaveren har oppebåret disse indtægter som lønindkomst eller ved selvstændig økonomisk virksomhed. Hvis indehaveren har oppebåret indtægterne som lønmodtager, angår sagen, om indehaveren er omfattet af momslovens § 46, stk. 7, og om det er med rette, at Skattestyrelsen ikke har godkendt fradrag for købsmoms. Retsgrundlaget Af momslovens § 3, stk. 1, fremgår: ”Afgiftspligtige personer er juridiske eller fysiske personer, der driver selvstændig økonomisk virksomhed” Følgende fremgår af momslovens § 4, stk. 1: ”Det betales afgift af varer og ydelser, der leveres mod vederlag her i landet. Ved levering af en vare forstås overdragelse af retten til som ejer at råde over et materielt gode. Levering af en ydelse omfatter enhver anden levering.” Af momssystemdirektivet art. 2, stk. 1, litra c, fremgår: ”Følgende transaktioner er momspligtige (…) levering af ydelser, som mod vederlag foretages på en medlemsstats område af en afgiftspligtig person, der handler i denne egenskab.” Følgende fremgår af momssystemdirektivet art. 9, stk. 1: ”Ved »afgiftspligtig person« forstås enhver, der selvstændigt og uanset stedet udøver økonomisk virksomhed uanset formålet med eller resultatet af en pågældende virksomhed. Ved »økonomisk virksomhed« forstås alle former for virksomhed som producent, handlende eller tjenesteydelser, herunder minedrift og landbrug, samt virksomhed inden for liberale og dermed sidestillede erhverv. Ved økonomisk virksomhed forstås navnlig udnyttelse af materielle eller immaterielle goder med henblik på opnåelse af indtægter af en vis varig karakter.” Af momssystemdirektivet art. 10 fremgår: ”Eftersom økonomisk virksomhed kun kan udøves selvstændigt, jf. artikel 9, stk. 1, er lønmodtagere og andre personer ikke omfattet af momsreglerne, i det omfang de er forpligtigede over for deres arbejdsgivere ved en arbejdskontrakt eller ved et andet retligt forhold, som skaber et arbejdstager-arbejdsgiverforhold med hensyn til arbejdes- og aflønningsvilkår og arbejdsgiver ansvar”. Efter ovennævnte bestemmelser er det kun juridiske eller fysiske personer, der driver selvstændig økonomisk virksomhed, der er afgiftspligtige. Selvstændig virksomhed er kendetegnet ved, at virksomheden udøves for egen regning og risiko. Momspligten omfatter ikke lønmodtagere. En lønmodtager er kendetegnet ved at udføre personligt arbejde i et arbejdstager-arbejdsgiverforhold, det vil sige efter arbejdsgiverens instruktioner og for dennes regning. Betaling for det udførte arbejde sker oftest i form af løn, provision, akkordbetaling og lignende. EU-domstolen har i sag C-420/18 (IO) udtalt, jf. præmis 39, at der ved fastlæggelse af, om der foreligger et underordnelsesforhold skal undersøges, om den pågældende person udøver sin virksomhed i eget navn, for egen regning og på eget ansvar, og om den pågældende selv bærer den økonomiske risiko, der er forbundet med udøvelsen af denne virksomhed. Ved vurderingen af, om der er tale om selvstændig virksomhed, lægges der i praksis vægt på, om der foreligger en arbejdskontrakt eller andre retlige forhold mellem parterne, som skaber et arbejdstager-arbejdsgiverforhold med hensyn til arbejds- og aflønningsvilkår og arbejdsgiverens ansvar. Følgende fremgår af momslovens § 46, stk. 1, 1. pkt.: ”Betaling af afgift påhviler den afgiftspligtige person, som foretager en afgiftspligtig levering af varer og ydelser her i landet.” Af dagældende bestemmelse i momslovens § 46, stk. 7 (lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1021 af 26. september 2019), fremgår: ”Betaling af en afgift påhviler enhver, der på en faktura anfører afgiftsbeløb eller anden angivelse af, at fakturabeløbet indbefatter afgift”. Den dagældende bestemmelse i momslovens § 46, stk. 7, udspringer af momssystemdirektivets art. 203, hvoraf fremgår. ”Momsen påhviler enhver person, som anfører denne afgift på en faktura.” EU-domstolen har i sag C-712/17 (EN.SA), jf. præmis 26, udtalt: ”(…) fremgår pligten for enhver, der anfører moms på en faktura, til at betale denne moms, udtrykkeligt af momssystemdirektivets artikel 203. I denne forbindelse har Domstolen præciseret, at den moms, der er anført på en faktura, påhviler udstederen af denne faktura, også i tilfælde, hvor der ikke foreligger en reel afgiftspligtig transaktion….” EU-domstolen har endvidere i sag C-422/22 (Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie), jf. præmisserne 23-25 og 27, udtalt: ”Hvad der for det første angår anvendelsesområdet for denne artikel 203 har Domstolen præciseret, at den moms, der er anført på en faktura, påhviler udstederen af denne faktura, også i de tilfælde, hvor der ikke foreligger en reel afgiftspligtig transaktion. (…) Det er således fast retspraksis, at nævnte artikel 203 har til formål at afværge risikoen for ethvert tab af afgiftsindtægter, som den fradragsret, der er fastsat i momsdirektivet, kan foranledige (…) Momsdirektivets artikel 203 finder derfor anvendelse, når momsen er faktureret med urette, og når der er risiko for tab af afgiftsindtægter som følge af, at modtageren af den pågældende faktura kan gøre sin fradragsret gældende. (…) Udstederen af en faktura, der angiver et momsbeløb, er således objektiv betalingspligtig for dette beløb, idet der er en risiko for tab af afgiftsindtægter. Hvis en sådan risiko derimod kan undgås, finder momsdirektivets artikel 203 ikke anvendelse. (…) Hvad for det andet angår identifikationen af den, som forpligtigelsen i denne artikel 203 er rettet mod, skal det bemærkes, at anvendelsen af udtrykket ”enhver person” indikerer, at denne person, som forpligtigelsen er rettet mod, ikke nødvendigvis er en afgiftspligtig person som omhandlet i momsdirektivets artikel 9. En ikke-afgiftspligtig fysisk person kan derfor principielt undergives den forpligtigelse, der er fastsat i dette direktivs artikel 203, idet denne anfører momsen på en faktura.” I afgørelse af 27. juni 2025, offentliggjort som SKM2025.663.LSR, fandt Landsskatteretten, at klagerens indkomst var oppebåret som lønmodtager. Landsskatteretten fandt endvidere, at klageren skulle indbetale den på fakturaerne anførte ”salgsmoms”, selvom indkomsten var oppebåret som lønmodtager. Landsskatteretten henså til at ”momsen” var opkrævet, og at der ikke var sket berigtigelse i form af kreditnotaer i overensstemmelse med momslovens § 52 a, stk. 7. Landsskatteretten fandt således, at en lønmodtager er omfattet af udtrykket ”enhver” i dagældende momslovens § 46, stk. 7 (nu stk. 6) og derved, at en person, der har påført et beløb benævnt moms på en faktura, er pligtig til at indbetale denne ”moms” til staten, uanset om personen er afgiftspligtig eller ej i momslovens forstand. Følgende fremgår af momslovens § 37, stk. 1: ”Virksomheder registreret efter §§ 47, 49, 51 eller 51 a kan ved opgørelsen af afgiftstilsvaret som indgående afgift, jf. § 56, stk. 3, fradrag afgiften efter denne lov for virksomhedens indkøb mv. af varer og ydelser, der udelukkende anvendes til brug for virksomhedens leverancer, som ikke er fritaget for afgift efter § 13, herunder leverancer udført i udlandet, jf. dog stk. 6 og 9.” Landsskatterettens begrundelse og resultat Lønmodtager eller selvstændig økonomisk virksomhed I den sammenholdte sag, sagsnr. [sag1], har Landsskatteretten stadfæstet Skattestyrelsens afgørelse, hvorefter indehaveren i skattemæssig henseende har oppebåret indtægterne fra [virksomhed2] i 2022 som lønmodtager og ikke som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende. Som begrundelse herfor har Landsskatteretten i afgørelsen anført: ”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 ”Courier Partner 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 væsentligt 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.” Med samme begrundelse finder Landsskatteretten, at indehaverens indtægter fra [virksomhed2] i 2022 er oppebåret som lønmodtager og ikke som led i selvstændig økonomisk virksomhed, jf. momslovens § 3, stk. 1. Landsskatteretten stadfæster således Skattestyrelsens afgørelse vedrørende dette punkt. Momsmæssige ændringer Der er i afregningsbilagene mellem indehaveren og [virksomhed2] anført moms med i alt 125.418 kr. I forholdet mellem indehaveren og [virksomhed2] er der ikke sket berigtigelse af denne ”salgsmoms” i form af kreditnotaer, jf. momslovens § 52 a, stk. 7. På dette grundlag skal indehaveren i henhold til Landsskatterettens afgørelse af 27. juni 2025, offentliggjort som SKM2025.663.LSR, til afgiftsmyndighederne indbetale den salgsmoms, der er anført i afregningsbilagene. Allerede fordi indehaverens indtægter fra [virksomhed2] i 2022 som anført ikke er oppebåret ved selvstændig økonomisk virksomhed, jf. momslovens § 3, stk. 1, kan den omhandlende købsmoms på 22.799 kr. ikke i medfør af momslovens § 37, stk. 1, fradrages ved opgørelsen af momstilsvaret. På dette grundlag forhøjer Landsskatteretten indehaverens momstilsvar fra 0 kr. til 125.418 kr.