A seemingly (fiscally) attractive structure still costs a professional hockey player dearly

In a dispute between the tax authorities and the player (regarding the 2017 tax assessment), the player believed that he was not an employee of the hockey club but played as an independent entrepreneur. However, the player is in the wrong.

The relationship of authority between the parties was decisive for the judge's opinion. Indeed, on behalf of the hockey club (being the employer), a trainer is authorized to give instructions to the players (including the player concerned) what instructions the players should follow. This does not affect the fact that the parties in the agreement agreed that the player could be replaced (in consultation with the hockey club), because — in view of the player's special qualities — this was not thought possible by the court.

The judge's opinion that there is employment between the parties meant that the player must pay taxes, contributions and national insurance as an employee (and not as an entrepreneur) in order to pay income tax.

A seemingly fiscally attractive structure therefore costs the player dearly afterwards. However, the ruling is also interesting from an employment law perspective. Indeed, if the relationship between the parties should be qualified as an employment relationship, this means that the employment law regime applies to the agreement between the parties. This can then have (far-reaching) consequences for the hockey club. However, given that this was not the subject of the present issue, they remained understudied. Nevertheless, the parties would do well to take a closer look at the agreement (knowing that employment law applies to it).

In practice, it is relevant that contracting parties keep in mind the (legal) relationship between them and which legal regime applies to it. Do you want to know more about this ruling or do you have questions about it? Please feel free to contact one of our specialists.

Stef van der Veldt

lawyer

‍

‍

‍