Udenlandsk arbejdskraft kan arbejde i Danmark på flere måder.

1. Arbejdskraften kan ansættes direkte i en dansk virksomhed, som herefter skal indeholde og afregne dansk skat for de ansatte og aflevere lønoplysninger til skattemyndighederne. De ansatte bliver efter interne regler og eventuelt indgåede dobbeltbeskatningsaftaler med bopælslandet beskattet som fuldt eller begrænset skattepligtige efter kildeskattelovens §§ 1 eller 2.
2. Arbejdskraften kan udlejes af en udenlandsk virksomhed til den danske virksomhed. Ansættelsen vil i så fald være hos den udenlandske virksomhed, men hvervgiveren udøver de normale arbejdsgiverrettigheder mv. Hvervgiveren skal efter nationale regler som udgangspunkt indeholde en skat på 30 % af vederlaget til arbejdskraften. Den arbejds-udlejede beskattes efter nationale regler og en eventuelt indgået dobbeltbeskatningsaftale med bopælslandet som begrænset skattepligtig i Danmark. Den indeholdte skat 30 % anses for en endelig skat. Den arbejdsudlejede kan dog vælge i stedet for at blive beskattet efter de almindelige regler for begrænset skattepligtige med heraf følgende muligheder for fradrag i indkomsten.
3. En udenlandsk virksomhed påtager sig en opgaven for hvervgiveren, og udfører denne arbejdsopgave med egne ansatte og under egen instruktion og ved brug af egne arbejdsredskaber mv.. Den udenlandske arbejdsgiver bliver efter nationale regler og eventuel indgået dobbeltbeskatningsaftale med arbejdsgiverens bopælsland kun skattepligtig til Danmark, såfremt han opnår fast driftssted i Danmark, hvilket kræver, at arbejdet foregår på en bestemt lokalitet og har en vis tidsmæssig udstrækning, jf. nedenfor. De ansatte bliver efter samme regelsæt kun skattepligtige til Danmark, såfremt den udenlandske arbejdsgiver får fast driftssted i Danmark, eller såfremt de opholder sig i Danmark i mere end 183 dage og deres ophold spænder over en sammenhængende periode på 6 måneder kun afbrudt af ferie eller lignende.

I sidstnævnte situation 3 foreligger et entrepriseforhold, som ikke giver mulighed for dansk beskatning af den erhvervsmæssige aktivitet på dansk område medmindre den udenlandske arbejdsgiver opnår fast driftssted i Danmark, og som derfor umiddelbart tilbyder den danske virksomhed de gunstigste administrative og skattemæssige fordele.

Fast driftssted i Danmark

Som nævnt skal entreprenøren være opmærksom på, at hans aktivitet kan bevirke, at han får fast driftssted i Danmark og dermed skal beskattes af sin aktivitet i Danmark samtidig med, at hans ansatte bliver begrænset skattepligtige til Danmark.

Definitionen af hvornår der foreligger et fast driftssted kan i særlig grad findes i bemærkningerne til artikel 5 i OECD’s modeloverenskomst, som også følges ved fastlæggelsen af fast driftssted efter nationale danske regler. I definitionen indgår følgende betingelser:

• Eksistensen af et “forretningssted”, dvs. indretninger såsom lokaler eller i visse tilfælde maskineri eller udstyr;
• Dette forretningssted skal være “fast”, dvs. det skal være etableret på et givet sted med en vis grad af varighed;
• Virksomhedsudøvelsen for foretagendet sker gennem dette faste driftssted. Det vil sædvanligvis sige, at personer, som på den ene eller den anden måde er afhængig af foretagendet (personale), udfører foretagendets virksomhed i den stat, hvor det faste driftssted er beliggende.

Udtrykket “forretningssted” dækker alle lokaler, indretninger eller installationer, der benyttes til at udøve foretagendets virksomhed, hvad enten det udelukkende bruges til dette formål eller ej. Et forretningssted kan også eksistere, hvor der ingen lokaler findes eller er fornødne til udøvelsen af foretagendets virksomhed, og det simpelthen har et vist areal til sin rådighed. Det er uden betydning, om lokalerne, indretningerne eller installationerne ejes eller lejes af eller på anden måde stilles til rådighed for foretagendet. Et forretningssted kan således bestå i en stadeplads på et marked eller visse permanent benyttede områder i et frilager (f.eks. til oplagring af toldpligtige varer). Videre kan forretningsstedet befinde sig inden for et andet foretagendes område. Det kan f.eks. være tilfældet, når det udenlandske foretagende til stadig anvendelse har visse lokaler eller dele deraf, der er ejet af det andet foretagende.

Med hensyn til varigheden står der bl.a. i kommentaren pkt. 6:

Et forretningssted kan imidlertid udgøre et fast driftssted, selvom det rent faktisk kun eksisterer i meget kort tid som følge af, at virksomheden er af en sådan art, at dens udøvelse kun varer kort tid. Det er undertiden vanskeligt at afgøre, om dette er tilfældet. Den praksis, som medlemslandene har haft med hensyn til tidsperioden, har ikke været ensartet, men erfaringen har vist, at et fast driftssted normalt ikke er anset for at foreligge, hvis en virksomhed i et land er udøvet gennem et forretningssted, der blev opretholdt i mindre end seks måneder. En undtagelse har været de tilfælde, hvor virksomheden har været af stadig tilbagevendende karakter; i disse tilfælde skal hver tidsperiode, i hvilken forretningsstedet er benyttet, ses i sammenhæng med det antal gange, forretningsstedet er benyttet (hvilket kan strække sig over et antal år). En anden undtagelse er gjort i tilfælde, hvor den udenlandske virksomheds virksomhedsudøvelse udelukkende fandt sted i det andet land; i denne situation kan virksomheden som følge af sin natur være af kort varighed, men da den udelukkende udøves i dette land, er tilknytningen til dette land stærkest.

Bygnings-, anlægs- eller installationsarbejde udgør efter nationale danske regler et fast driftssted fra 1. dag. Har Danmark indgået en dobbeltbeskatningsaftale med den udenlandsk entreprenørs bopælsland, som svarer til bestemmelsen i artikel 5, stk. 3 i OECD’s modeloverenskomst, vil Danmark imidlertid først kunne beskatte, hvis den pågældende aktivitet varer mere end 12 måneder. Indgåede aftaler kan imidlertid have fastsat en kortere eller længere tid.

Entreprisemodellen

Entreprisekontrakter anvendes særligt indenfor byggebranchen. Gennem en entreprisekontrakt kan en udenlandsk entreprenør påtage sig at udføre bygnings-, anlægs- eller udvindingsarbejder i Danmark. Det skattemæssige problem ved et sådant arbejde vil i første omgang være, om denne form for virksomhed konstituerer et fast driftssted i Danmark, således at Danmark efter interne regler og indgåede dobbeltbeskatningsaftaler vil kunne beskatte den udenlandske entreprenør af overskuddet ved den produktive virksomhed i Danmark.

I byggebranchen er entreprisebegrebet et indarbejdet begreb, og der findes en del ikke-skattemæssig litteratur, som beskriver dette område. I praksis har det imidlertid vist sig, at der også indenfor dette område jævnligt opstår tvivl om der er indgået en entrepriseaftale eller ej, der kan godkendes skattemæssigt.

Er der indgået en entrepriseaftale om et bygge- og anlægsarbejde, men konstituerer aktiviteten i Danmark ikke et fast driftssted, skal den danske aftalepart foretage indberetning til det såkaldte § 7 E register. Dette sker for at sikre, at udenlandske virksomheder, der udfører arbejde her i landet bliver undergivet beskatning her i landet tilligemed Deres ansatte.

Entrepriseaftaler uden for byggebranchen synes at angå overdragelse af enkeltstående arbejdsopgaver indenfor et begrænset tidsinterval. Der skal ikke foretages indberetning til SKAT om sådanne afgtaler. Arbejdsopgaven kan være sæsonpræget. Der kan eventuelt være tale om årligt tilbagevendende arbejdsopgaver. Heroverfor står egentlige varige udflytninger (outsourcing) af arbejdsopgaver. Sådanne udflytninger kan ske til udlandet således at arbejdet fremover udføres i udlandet eller ved at overlade arbejdet til andre virksomheder her i landet

Det betyder i sidstnævnte tilfælde, at flere opgaver i en modervirksomheds lokaler udføres af medarbejdere, som er ansat af andre arbejdsgivere. Det gælder f.eks. rengørings- og vagtopgaver. Der er ingen tvivl om, at hvor der foreligger en outsourcing af arbejdsopgaver, hvorved en anden virksomhed i enhver henseende overtager ansvaret for og udførelsen af disse arbejdsopgaver, må outsourcingen også godkendes i skattemæssig henseende.

Entrepriseaftalen har ikke den samme vedvarende karakter, men overdrager midlertidigt arbejdsopgaver til samarbejdspartnere, som må antages at have mindst samme viden og ekspertise som virksomheden selv, såfremt de skal kunne udføre arbejdsopgaven på egen hånd. En sådan aftale må derfor normalt også godkendes i skattemæssig henseende, hvis der reelt sker en overdragelse af arbejdsopgaver til en anden virksomhed, der i enhver henseende overtager ansvaret for og udførelsen af disse arbejdsopgaver.

Problemet er derfor at fastlægge, hvornår der foreligger en sådan reel overdragelse af arbejdsopgaver til en udenlandsk arbejdsgiver, som kan godkendes skattemæssigt.

Da der ved indgåelse af en entreprisekontrakt bl.a. kan opstå en situation, hvor Danmark hverken kan beskatte fortjenesten ved den udenlandske virksomheds aktivitet her i landet og heller ikke kan beskatte de ansatte af deres løn ved arbejde i Danmark, vil myndighederne stille krav til dokumentationen for, at der er indgået en reel entrepriseaftale.

Det indebærer, at hvis det følger af den indgåede aftale eller det i praksis viser sig, at flere af nedenstående forhold, der taler for, at der foreligger arbejdsudleje, er til stede, vil der blive stillet store krav til kontraktsparternes dokumentation for, at der en indgået en reel entrepriseaftale.

Er der indgået en entrepriseaftale med en udenlandsk virksomhed skal den udenlandske virksomhed momsregistreres i Danmark. For en nøjere beskrivelse henvises der til “Momsguide for udenlandske virksomheder” (E nr. 104), der også findes på SKATs hjemmeside.

Arbejdsudleje

Begrebet arbejdsudleje tager i dansk ret ifølge betænkning over forslag til lov om ændring af kildeskatteloven og selskabsloven (1981-1982) sigte på entrepriselignende forhold. Herved er det begrebsmæssige slægtsskab til entrepriseaftaler fastslået. Problemet er, at de to situationer behandles skattemæssigt meget forskelligt.

I arbejdsudlejesituationen (situation 2 ovenfor) er der ikke tvivl om, at lønmodtageren er ansat i den udenlandske virksomhed, men det er den danske virksomhed, der har det overordnede ansvar og risiko for det arbejde, der udføres. Myndighederne vil kunne godtgøre, at der er tale om et arbejdsudlejeforhold, såfremt

1. den overordnede ledelse af arbejdet påhviler hvervgiveren
2. arbejdet udføres på en arbejdsplads, som hvervgiveren disponerer over, og for hvilken han bærer ansvaret
3. vederlaget til udlejeren beregnes efter den tid, der er medgået, eller under hensynstagen til anden sammenhæng mellem vederlaget og den løn, arbejdstageren får
4. hovedparten af arbejdsredskaber og materiel stilles til rådighed af hvervgiveren, og
5. udlejeren ikke ensidigt fastsætter antallet af arbejdstagere og deres kvalifikationer

Der er tale om en samlet vurdering.

Der henvises til cirkulære nr. 135 af 4/11 1988 om opkrævning af indkomst og formueskat efter kildeskatteloven, pkt. 42.

Der er altså i realiteten tale om en bevisvurdering, hvilket som tidligere bemærket stiller krav til klarhed i udformningen og indholdet af entrepriseaftalen samt den faktiske udførelse af arbejdsopgaven.

Begrebet arbejdsudleje er også et internationalt anerkendt begreb indenfor skatteretten. Det fremgår således af bemærkningerne til OECD modeloverenskomstens artikel 15, at brugeren af arbejdskraften kan være den reelle arbejdsgiver under stort set de samme betingelser, som nævnt ovenfor. Foreligger der arbejdsudleje vil arbejdslandet være tillagt beskatningsretten, såfremt der er indgået en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst mellem Danmark og de arbejdsudlejedes bopælsstater.

Da der som nævnt foran stort set ikke er nogen skattemæssig litteratur, som beskæftiger sig med entrepriseaftaler indenfor skatteretten, må grænsedragningen, mellem om der er tale om en entrepriseaftale eller en aftale om arbejdsudleje, findes i den administrative praksis samt i den forefindende landsskatterets- og domstolspraksis på området.

Den offentliggjorte og kendte ikke offentliggjorte skattepraksis på dette område er forholdsvis sparsom. Nedenfor gennemgås eksempler fra praksis:

Offentliggjort praksis

Eksempel 1

SKM2007.232.SR. I denne sag fandt Skatterådet, at der var tale om arbejdsudleje i en situation, hvor et dansk rekrutteringsfirma indgik en aftale med udenlandske konsulentfirmaer om, at disse firmaer skulle stille udenlandske konsulenter med specialviden til rådighed for rekrutteringsfirmaets danske kundevirksomheder. Konsulenterne var ansat i de udenlandske konsulentfirmaer, der udbetalte løn til konsulenterne. Skatterådet lagde bl.a. til grund, at hverken det danske rekrutteringsfirma eller de udenlandske konsulentfirmaer drev virksomhed inden for de fagområder, som de rekrutterede konsulenter repræsenterede. Konsulenterne stilledes således til rådighed for de danske virksomheder med henblik på at udføre arbejde inden for deres fagområde som led i det danske firmas virksomhed. Den overordnede ledelse påhvilede det danske firma, uanset om der måtte være tale om konsulenter, med sådanne kvalifikationer, at det danske firma var uden forudsætning for at varetage den overordnede faglige ledelse af den opgave, der skulle udføres. Det blev endvidere lagt til grund, at det udenlandske konsulentfirma blev vederlagt med en fast takst pr. time for den tid, der effektivt var forbrugt af konsulenterne. Konsulenten skulle ugentligt registrere timeforbruget i de det danske firmas interne timeregistreringssystem. Risikoen og ansvaret for det udførte arbejde blev endvidere anset for at påhvile det danske firma, der i øvrigt stillede kontrolfaciliteter herunder hardware og software til rådighed for konsulenten

Eksempel 2

SKM2007.193.LSR. I denne sag blev en dansk virksomhed anset for pligtig til at betale moms af polsk arbejdskraft leveret til Danmark. Arbejdskraften måtte anses for arbejdsudlejet fra Polen, og virksomheden havde således fået leveret en ydelse i form af arbejdskraft fra et andet EU-land. Den danske virksomhed var ved en tidligere kendelse blevet anset for at være indeholdelsespligtig samt at hæfte for skatten. Landsskatteretten lagde i den forbindelse til grund, at kontrakterne med de polske firmaer ikke indeholdt en nærmere beskrivelse af, hvilket arbejde, der konkret skulle udføres, men blot en aftale om levering af arbejdskraft i en periode, at der var indgået flere mere elle mindre fortløbende kontrakter med de polske firmaer, at den danske virksomhed måtte anses for at have instrueret de polske arbejdere om, hvilket arbejde de skulle udføre, at værktøj m.v. var stillet til rådighed af den danske virksomhed, og at vederlaget for det udførte arbejde skulle honoreres med en timeløn og ikke med en fast pris for et konkret arbejde.

Eksempel 3

I SKM2007.561.ØLR var skatteyderen håndværksmester og ejede et A/S, der drev bygge- og anlægsvirksomhed. Skatteyderen ejede et sommerhus. Han indgik som bygherre en aftale om totalrenovering af dette sommerhus med et udenlandsk firma som totalentreprenør. Det udenlandske firma var et polsk firma med polske ansatte. Landsskatteretten fandt, at de polske medarbejdere var udlejet til skatteyderen for at udføre arbejde på dennes ejendom, og at det var skatteyderen som håndværksmester, der havde den daglige styring af arbejdet. Sagen blev indbragt for Landsretten, der den 8/8 2007 stadfæstede Landsskatterettens afgørelse. Landsretten lagde vægt på, at arbejdsbeskrivelsen var affattet på dansk og efter det oplyste blev videreformidlet til en en engelskkyndig medarbejder, der oversatte den til polsk for enteprenøren. Der blev endvidere lagt vægt på, at entrepisen blev afregnet med et forholdsvis lavt beløb. Under disse omstændigheder fandt Landsretten, at der bestod et misforhold mellem omfanget af arbejderne og materialerne i arbejdsbeskrivelsen og den aftalte pris. Skatteyderen havde derfor bevisbyrden for at arbejdet reelt var udført som totalentreprise og ikke som arbejdsudleje. Denne bevisbyrde havde skatteyderen ikke løftet. Skatteyderen hæftede derfor for A-skat (30 %). ToldSkat havde af mangel af oplysninger om de polske arbejdstageres løn fastsat indeholdelsespligten til 30 % af det samlede vederlag til det udenlandske selskab. Landsskatteretten fandt ikke grundlag for at tilsidesætte dette. Hvervgiveren hæftede herefter for en eventuelt manglende indeholdelse af A-skat, jf. kildeskattelovens § 69.

Eksempel 4

SKM2004.237.LSR (appelleret). Et dansk selskab indgik en arbejdsudlejekontrakt med et hollandsk firma, om at stille uddannede hollandske slagtere til rådighed til kødopskæring. Ingen af de hollandske slagtere havde været beskæftiget i det danske selskab i over 183 dage. De udsendte hollandske slagtere var kontraktligt ansat af det hollandske firma, og lønudbetaling, indeholdelse af hollandsk kildeskat og arbejdsmarkedsbidrag blev administreret af det hollandske selskab. Det hollandske selskab sendte ugentlige fakturaer til det danske selskab, baseret på antal timer de udsendte slagtere havde arbejdet i selskabet. Produktionschef og mestre i produktion hos det danske selskab, foretog instruktion af formand/mester for de hollandske slagtere i arbejdets udførelse, som så instruerede de øvrige de øvrige hollandske slagtere. Produktionschef og mestre i produktion hos det danske selskab førte tilsyn med arbejdets kvalitet og dets udførelse og kontrollerede visuelt og efter optælling, at udbeningen foregik efter de givne instrukser og skæreplaner. Slagternes kvalifikationer og arbejdsindsats blev bedømt og havde betydning for den timeafhængig sats, som det danske selskab betalte til det hollandske selskab. Antallet af slagtere blev fastsat ved ugentlige aftaler. Arbejdstiden var den samme som for andre medarbejdere på virksomheden. Det danske selskab stillede det fornødne antal værelser (inkl. aftensmad) til rådighed for slagterne, ligesom selskabet stillede alle nødvendige faciliteter for arbejdes udførelse til rådighed, herunder arbejdsbeklædning, knive og sikkerhedsudstyr. Det danske selskab blev anset for at være de hollandske slagteres arbejdsgiver i den betydning begrebet har i artikel 14, litra b, i dobbeltbeskatningsaftalen mellem Danmark og Holland. Landsskatteretten henså herved til, at det var det danske selskab, der havde retten til det udførte arbejde, og som havde instruktionsbeføjelsen overfor de hollandske slagtere. Der blev endvidere henset til, at arbejdet blev udført på en arbejdsplads, der var under det danske selskabs kontrol og ansvar, at vederlaget til det hollandske selskab blev beregnet på baggrund af de timer, de udlejede slagtere havde arbejdet for det danske selskab, at redskaber og materiel blev stillet til rådighed af det danske selskab, og at antallet af slagtere blev fastsat ved ugentlige aftaler. Det danske selskab var herefter indeholdelsespligtigt af A-skat ved anvendelsen af arbejdsudlejede hollandske slagtere, jf. kildeskattelovens § 46 og § 2, stk. 1, litra c.

Ikke offentliggjort praksis

Eksempel 5

Der er tale om en aftale mellem en polsk entreprenør og et dansk skovbrug. Ifølge aftalen skulle den polske virksomhed foretage:

• plantning af 30.000 træer
• bundklipning af 50.000 træer med el saks
• formklipning og knoppildning af 50.000 træer
• hegnsætning komplet 1500 m

De tre første arbejdsopgaver blev anset for en aftale om arbejdsudleje, medens den sidste arbejdsopgave (hegnsætning) blev godkendt som entrepriseaftale. Det blev i sagen lagt til grund, at betalingen for det udførte arbejde skete på akkordlignende vilkår, at den danske virksomhed dagligt var i kontakt med den polske virksomheds kontaktperson på stedet. Hvad der faldt ud til fordel for arbejdsopgave 4 var,

• at entreprenøren medbringer samtlige arbejdsredskaber og materialer
• at de anvendte hegnsmaterialer er standardvarer
• at entreprenøren ikke anvender det danske firmas maskiner og arbejdsredskaber
• at entreprisesummen ikke kan overstige et maksimumsbeløb uanset evt. ekstraarbejde
• at afregningen skete efter færdiggørelsesgrad og ikke efter anvendte timer

Eksempel 6

Der er tale om en kontrakt indgået mellem en planteskole og en udenlandsk kontraktspart om okulation af i alt 150.000 stk. stammer på planteskolens adresse. Arbejdet skulle påbegyndes i juli måned og af hensyn til klimaet være afsluttet inden 2 uge i september. Der var aftalt en fast pris, der ville blive udbetalt efter anslag 80 % medens der f.eks. ville ske et fratræk på 10 %, hvis anslaget var 70 %. Der blev afregnet med 50 % af den aftalte kontraktsum ved arbejdets tilendebringelse og resten efter 30 dage evt. med fratræk for dårlig anslag. Den udenlandske kontraktspart bar således risikoen for et evt. tab ud over de 20 %, som der var kalkuleret med. Den udenlandske kontraktspart ansatte selv det nødvendige mandskab og afholdt alle dermed forbundne udgifter. Den udenlandske kontraktspart blev godkendt som selvstændigt erhvervsdrivende og de af ham ansatte dermed godkendt som ansat i den udenlandske virksomhed og ikke hverken ansat eller arbejdsudlejet til den danske planteskole. Kontrakten må derfor anses som godkendt som en entreprisekontrakt. Den danske virksomhed skulle således ikke indeholde A-skat og arbejdsmarkedsbidrag.

Eksempel 7

I dette tilfælde er der tale om en virksomhed med kornavl og kreaturhold. Indehaveren havde indgået kontrakt med et lettisk selskab. Kontrakterne blev indgået for 1 måned ad gangen og arbejdsopgaven var at malke, fodre og renholde stald og område dagligt i den pågældende måned. Det lettiske selskab var registreret i Letland og momsregistreret i Danmark. De arbejdstagere, der sendtes til Danmark var ikke ansat i det lettiske firma før udsendelsen til Danmark. På baggrund af de foreliggende oplysninger fandt Landsskatteretten, at der var tale om arbejdsudleje, hvorved det blev lagt til grund, at arbejdet udførtes på landmandens gård, at arbejdsredskaber og materialer var stillet til rådighed af landmanden, at den daglige ledelse af arbejdet måtte være forestået af landmanden eller af hans ansatte, idet det lettiske selskabs tilstedeværelse på landmandens gård, henholdsvis kontakt med landmanden eller selskabets medarbejdere havde været begrænset og idet kontrakten ikke beskrev arbejdsopgaverne på en sådan måde, at en daglig ledelse ikke kunne anses for nødvendig og endelig, at det lettiske selskab ikke sås at bære nogen økonomisk risiko for arbejdets udførelse.

Konklusion

Ovennævnte eksempler 1-4 er alle eksempler på aftaler, der ikke har kunnet anses for entrepriseaftaler, men som opfyldte betingelserne for at blive anset for en kontrakt om arbejdsudleje med en udenlandsk arbejdsgiver. I eksempel 5 opfyldte kun en af kontrakterne betingelserne for at der forelå en entrepriseaftale, idet det i de øvrige kontrakter kunne dokumenteres, at betingelserne for at der forelå arbejdsudleje var til stede. Aftalen i eksempel 6 må ligeledes anses at have opfyldt beviskravene til, at der var tale om en entrepriseaftale. I eksempel 7 er alle betingelserne for, at der foreligger arbejdsudleje opfyldt, hvorfor det ikke er anset bevist, at der foreligger en entreprisekontrakt. Den skattemæssige sondring mellem entreprise og arbejdsudleje er således i bund og grund et spørgsmål om beskatningsret, der afgøres efter principperne for bevis og bevisbyrde. Jo klarere kontrakten formuleret og jo færre forhold i kontrakten, og i den praktiske udførelse af arbejdsopgaverne ifølge kontrakten, der taler for arbejdsudleje, des mere taler omstændighederne for, at der er tale om en entreprisekontrakt.

Nedenfor er på basis af den forudgående gennemgang opremset en række forudsætninger samt forhold, der efter praksis bør indgå i kontrakten og som bør efterleves i praksis, såfremt kontrakten skattemæssigt skal kunne godkendes som en entreprisekontrakt. Der er ikke hermed taget stilling til, hvorvidt entreprenørens aktivitet evt. vil konstituere et fast driftssted i Danmark.

Kontrakten	Den danske virksomhed	Arbejdstageren	Den udenlandske virksomhed
Prisen for entreprisen bør fastsættes som en fast pris for det udførte arbejde, herunder eventuelt pris pr. produceret/leveret enhed, og ikke efter timeløn, akkord eller hvad der sædvanligvis afregnes efter overfor den danske virksomheds ansatte for udført arbejde, idet beviset for, at der foreligger et entrepriseforhold ellers svækkes. Kontrakten bør indeholde en klar præcis beskrivelse af, hvilket arbejde, der konkret skal udføres og den tidsmæssige udførelse og færdiggørelse Kontrakten bør indeholde bestemmelser om entreprenørens ansvar og risiko for det udførte arbejde Entreprisekontraktens bestemmelser skal, under forudsætning af, at de i øvrigt opfylder de formelle krav til en entrepriseaftale, jf. den forudgående gennemgang og nærværende skema, efterleves efter ordlyden af de involverede personer i praksis, idet kontrakten ellers må forventes tilsidesat som en entreprisekontrakt. Hvor det drejer sig om byggevirksomhed. Der er indgået en byggekontrakt efter AB 93 (standardkontrakter ineholdende garantier mv.)	Må ikke være tillagt eller faktisk udøve ledelsesretten. Må kun i begrænset omfang stille værktøj og maskiner til rådighed for de udenlandske arbejdstagere. Skal være tillagt reklamationsret, garantier e. lign.	Skal være under instruktion af den udenlandske arbejdsgiver, hvilket som udgangspunkt hindrer, at arbejdstageren kan arbejde på lige fod med arbejdstagere ansat af den danske virksomhed.	Skal være en etableret virksomhed i hjemlandet. Skal selv eller gennem en kompetent repræsentant (ledelsesmæssigt og fagligt) faktisk udøve ledelsesretten dagligt. Skal bære en entreprenørs risiko ved arbejdets udførelse Bør have faglig viden indenfor det arbejdsområde entreprisen omfatter, da fravær af en sådan viden bevismæssigt i stedet peger i retning af arbejdsudleje. Skal, hvor arbejdet nødvendiggør brugen af arbejdsredskaber, stille hovedparten af disse til rådighed for arbejdstagerne, idet beviset for, at der foreligger et entrepriseforhold i modsat fald skærpes.

Appendix 1. Guidelines on Fixed Contracts

Why fixed contracts?

Foreign workers may work in Denmark under several circumstances.

1. Foreign workers may be employed directly by a Danish enterprise. In that case, the enterprise must withhold and settle Danish income tax for the employees and report pay information to the tax authorities. The employees will be taxed according to national rules and any double tax treaties made between Denmark and their states of residence as taxpayers with full or limited tax liability under section 1 or section 2 of the Danish Tax at Source Act.
2. Workers may be hired out from a foreign enterprise to a Danish enterprise. In that case, the workers will be employed by the foreign enterprise, while the contract grantor exercises the normal employer rights, etc. According to national rules, the contract grantor must in principle withhold a tax of 30% on the remuneration for the workers. The hired-out workers will be taxed according to national rules and any double tax treaty made between Denmark and their state of residence as persons who are subject to limited tax liability in Denmark. The 30% tax withheld will be considered as a final tax. However, hired-out workers can choose instead to be taxed according to the general rules for persons with limited tax liability, with the consequent possibilities to make certain deductions from their income.
3. A foreign enterprise may undertake to carry out a job for the contract grantor and perform the work using its own employees under its own instruction and using its own tools, equipment, etc. According to national rules and any double tax treaty made with the foreign employer’s state of residence, the employer will only become liable to tax to Denmark, if the employer obtains a permanent establishment in Denmark, which will require that the work is carried out at a specific location and for a certain duration in time, as stated below. According to the same rule set, the employees will only become liable to pay tax to Denmark in case the foreign employer obtains a permanent establishment in Denmark or if they stay in Denmark for more than 183 days and their stay spans a continuous period of six months, interrupted only by holidays, etc.

The last situation, situation 3, represents a contract relationship which leaves no possibility of Danish taxation of business activity on Danish territory, unless the foreign employer obtains a permanent establishment in Denmark. Therefore, it offers the Danish enterprise the most favourable administrative and tax benefits.

Permanent establishment in Denmark

As mentioned above, the contractor must be alert to the possibility that his activity may lead to the result that he gets a permanent establishment in Denmark and thus has to be taxed on his activity in Denmark while, at the same time, his employees will become subject to limited tax liability to Denmark.

The definition of when a permanent establishment will exist may be found particularly in the Commentary on Article 5 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, which also guides the determination of a permanent establishment under domestic, Danish rules. The definition comprises the following conditions:

• There must be a “place of business”, i.e. facilities such as premises or in some cases machinery or equipment;
• This place of business must be “fixed”, i.e. it must be in a distinct location with a certain degree of permanence;
• The business of the enterprise must be conducted through this fixed place. Usually, it will mean that persons who somehow depend on the enterprise (employees) carry out the business of the enterprise in the state in which the permanent establishment is located.

The expression “place of business” covers all premises, facilities or installations used for carrying on the business of the enterprise, whether or not they are used exclusively for this purpose. A place of business may also exist where no premises are available or where no premises are required for carrying on the business of the enterprise and it simply has a certain amount of space at its disposal. It is immaterial whether the premises, facilities or installations are owned or rented by the enterprise or are otherwise at its disposal. Thus, a place of business may be a stall at a market or certain permanently used areas of a bonded warehouse (for instance for the storing of dutiable goods). In addition, the place of business may be located within the space of another enterprise. It may be the case, for example, if a foreign enterprise has the permanent use of certain premises or parts of premises owned by the other enterprise.

As regards the duration, it is stated, for instance, in paragraph 6 of the Commentary that:

A place of business may, however, constitute a permanent establishment, even though it exists, in practice, for a very short period of time because the nature of the business is such that it will only be carried on for that short period of time. It is at times difficult to determine whether this is the case. The past practice followed by the member states as regards the period of time has not been consistent, but experience has shown that permanent establishments have normally not been considered to exist in situations where a business has been carried on in a country through a place of business that was maintained for less than six months. An exception has been the cases in which the business has been of a constantly recurring nature; in such cases each period of time during which the place of business has been used must be viewed in combination with the number of times that it has been used (which can span a number of years). Another exception has been made in cases in which the business activity of the foreign enterprise took place exclusively in the other country; in this situation the activity may due to its nature be of short duration, but as it is carried on in this country exclusively, the enterprise’s connection with this country is stronger.

Building, construction or installation projects constitute a permanent establishment from day one under domestic, Danish rules. If Denmark has signed a double tax treaty with the foreign contractor’s state of residence corresponding to the provision in Article 5(3) of the OECD Model Tax Convention, Denmark will, however, only be able to impose tax liability in case the project concerned lasts more than twelve months. Agreements may, however, have been made to fix a shorter or longer period.

The Contract Model

Fixed contracts are used particularly in the building and construction industry. Based on a fixed contract, a foreign contractor may undertake to carry out building, civil engineering or extraction works in Denmark. The tax issue of such works will be, in the first place, whether this type of activity will constitute a permanent establishment in Denmark, so that on the basis of domestic rules and any double tax treaties signed, Denmark will be able to impose tax on the foreign contractor’s profit earned on productive activity in Denmark.

In the building industry the contract concept is an established concept and a considerable body of non-tax literature describes the area. In practice it has turned out, however, that also in this area doubt arises frequently as to whether or not an agreement is a fixed contract which can be approved for tax purposes.

If a fixed contract has been entered into for a building and civil engineering project, while the activity in Denmark does not constitute a permanent establishment, the Danish contracting party must file a report to the so-called Article 7 E Register. This is required in order to ensure that foreign enterprises that carry out work in Denmark are made liable to taxation in this country along with their employees.

Fixed contracts outside the construction industry seem to be concerned with the transfer of particular jobs within a restricted time interval. These contracts must not be reported to the tax authorities (SKAT). Such jobs may be seasonal, or they may consist of yearly recurring jobs. Contrasted to such jobs is the true, permanent outsourcing of activities. Outsourcing may be carried through to another country, such that the work is carried out abroad in future, or it may involve other enterprises in this country that take over the work.

In the last case it means that several activities in the premises of a parent enterprise are carried out by workers who are employed by other employers. This applies to cleaning and security jobs, for example. There is no doubt that where certain jobs have been outsourced, whereby another enterprise takes over the responsibility for and the performance of these jobs in every respect, the outsourcing must also be recognised for tax purposes.

A fixed contract is not of the same permanent character but transfers work activities on a temporary basis to business partners, who may be assumed to have at least the same know-how and expertise as the enterprise itself, if they are to be able to carry out the work independently. Normally, such an agreement must therefore also be approved for tax purposes if, in reality, there is a transfer of work to another enterprise that takes over the responsibility for and the performance of this work in every respect.

The problem is therefore to determine when such a real transfer of work to a foreign employer exists and can be approved for tax purposes.

Because a situation may arise, when a fixed contract is entered into, in which Denmark cannot charge any tax, neither on the profit from the foreign enterprise’s business in this country nor on the employees’ wages earned from their work in Denmark, the authorities will set stringent requirements for the documentation provided to show that a genuine fixed contract has been entered into.

This means that if it follows from the contract made, or if it turns out in practice, that the situation involves several of the circumstances stated below, which seem to substantiate that the contract is concerned with the hiring-out of labour, then the tax authorities will set stringent requirements for the documentation provided by the contracting parties to prove that they have entered into a genuine fixed contract.

If a fixed contract has been made with a foreign enterprise, the foreign enterprise needs to be registered for VAT in Denmark. For a more detailed description, enterprises are referred to the “VAT guide for foreign enterprises” (E no. 104), which is also available at the website of SKAT (the tax authorities).

Hiring-out of labour

In Danish law, according to the report on the Bill to Amend the Tax at Source Act and the Companies Act (1981 – 1982), the concept of the hiring-out of labour is intended to be applicable in situations similar to fixed contracts. Thereby, the conceptual kinship with fixed contracts has been established. The problem is that the two situations are not at all subject to the same tax treatment.

In the hired-out labour situation (situation 2 above) there is no doubt that the employees are employed in the foreign enterprise, while the Danish enterprise carries the overall responsibility and risk for the work performed. The tax authorities will be able to substantiate that it is a case of hiring-out of labour if

1. the overall management of the work is the duty of the contract grantor,
2. the work is carried out at a workplace which is at the disposal of the contract grantor and for which he holds the responsibility
3. the remuneration to the hiring-out enterprise is calculated on the basis of time consumed or taking account of some other connection between the remuneration and the wages paid to the employees,
4. the greater part of the tools and equipment used are made available by the contract grantor, and
5. the hirer-out does not independently fix the number of workers and their qualifications.

The assessment will be made on the basis of an overall view.

Enterprises are also referred to Circular No. 135 of 4 November 1988 on the collection of tax on income and on capital according to the Tax at Source Act, item 42.

Thus, in reality it is a matter of assessment of the proof submitted which, as mentioned previously, requires clarity in the drafting and contents of the fixed contract and the actual performance of the job involved.

The concept of hiring-out labour is also an internationally recognised concept in tax law. Thus, it appears from Article 15 of the Commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention that the user of the labour may be the real employer under largely the same conditions as those set out above. If the situation is concerned with the hiring-out of labour, the country in which the work is performed will hold the right of taxation, in case a double tax treaty has been entered into between Denmark and the states of residence of the hired-out workers.

Since, as stated above, there exists largely no literature dealing with fixed contracts in tax law, the borderline that determines if a situation is a fixed contract or a contract on the hiring-out of labour must depend on administrative practice and the existing legal precedents established in the area by the National Tax Tribunal or the High Courts.

The published and known non-published tax precedents in this area are relatively sparse. Examples from practice are reviewed below:

Published precedents

Example 1

SKM2007.232.SR. In this case the National Assessment Council found that the situation was concerned with the hiring-out of labour, as a Danish recruitment firm made an agreement with foreign consulting firms according to which these firms had to make foreign consultants with specialist knowledge available to the Danish customers of the recruitment firm. The consultants were employed by the foreign consulting firms, which paid their salaries. The National Assessment Council took into account that neither the Danish recruitment firm nor the foreign consulting firms carried on activity in the business areas that the recruited consultants represented. Thus, the consultants were made available to Danish enterprises to carry out work in their own professional area as part of the Danish enterprises’ business. The overall management was the Danish enterprise’s responsibility, irrespective of whether the consultants concerned might hold such know-how that the Danish enterprise was without any qualifications to handle the overall professional management of the work to be performed. It was, in addition, taken into account that the foreign consulting firm was paid on the basis of a fixed rate per hour for the time effectively spent by its consultants. Each consultant had to register his weekly hours spent in the Danish enterprise’s internal time registration system. The risk and responsibility for the work performed was moreover considered to rest on the Danish company, which also placed control facilities, including hardware and software, at the consultant’s disposal.

Example 2

SKM2007.193.LSR. In this case a Danish company was viewed to be liable to pay VAT on Polish labour delivered to Denmark. The workers had to be considered to have been hired out from Poland and the company had thus received a delivery of services in the form of labour from another EU state. In a previous ruling, the Danish company had been viewed to be liable to withhold income tax and liable for its payment. In that connection the National Tax Tribunal took into account that the contracts with the Polish firms did not include any specific description of what work the workers had to carry out specifically, only an agreement on the delivery of labour through a period, that several more or less continuous agreements had been made with the Polish firms, that the Danish company had to be considered to have instructed the Polish workers on the work they had to carry out, that tools etc. had been placed at their disposal by the Danish company and that the remuneration for the work performed had to be paid at an hourly rate and not a fixed price for a specified job.

Example 3

SKM2007.561.ØLR. In this example the taxpayer was a master builder who owned a limited liability company that carried out building and construction activity. The taxpayer owned a summer cottage. He made an agreement, as a client, for complete renovation of this summer cottage with a foreign firm which operated as a turnkey contractor. The foreign contractor was a Polish firm with Polish employees. The National Tax Tribunal found that the Polish employees had been hired out to the taxpayer to carry out work on his property, and that it was the taxpayer, as a master builder, who carried out the day-to-day management of the work. The case was brought before the High Court. On 8 August 2007 the Court upheld the National Tax Tribunal’s decision. The High Court took into account that the work description had been written in Danish and according to the information submitted it was communicated to an employee who spoke English and translated the description into Polish for the contractor. In addition, weight was attached to the fact that the contract was settled at a relatively low amount. In these circumstances, the High Court found that there was a mismatch between the scope of the work and materials in the work description and the agreed price. Consequently, the burden of proof was on the taxpayer, who had to substantiate that the work had really been carried out as a turnkey contract and not by the hiring-out of labour. The taxpayer had failed to discharge this burden of proof and was therefore liable to pay withheld income tax (30%). Due to lack of information about the Polish workers’ pay, the tax authorities had fixed the withholding liability at 30% of the total remuneration paid to the foreign enterprise. The National Tax Tribunal found no reason to set aside this decision. The contract grantor was therefore liable for any income tax that had not been withheld in conformity with section 69 of the Tax at Source Act.

Example 4

SKM2004.237.LSR (appealed). A Danish company entered into an agreement on the hiring-out of labour with a Dutch firm that had to make qualified Dutch meat cutters available for the cutting out of meat. None of the Dutch meat cutters had been working for the Danish company for more than 183 days. The posted Dutch meat cutters were employed on contracts with the Dutch firm and the payment of their wages and withholding of Dutch income tax and social security contributions were administered by the Dutch firm. The Dutch firm sent weekly invoices to the Danish company based on the number of hours that the posted meat cutters had worked for the company. The production manager and supervisors of the production of the Danish company carried out the instruction of the foreman/supervisor of the Dutch meat cutters on how to perform the work, and in turn they instructed the other Dutch meat cutters. The production manager and supervisors in the production at the Danish company inspected the quality of the work and its performance and checked visually and based on counting that the boning of the meat was carried out according to the instructions given and the cutting charts provided. The meat cutters’ qualifications and performance were assessed and had influence on the hour-based rate that the Danish company paid to the Dutch company. The number of meat cutters was fixed on the basis of weekly agreements. The working hours were the same as those of other employees of the Danish company. The Danish company made the necessary number of rooms (including supper) available to the meat cutters as well as the company made all necessary facilities for the performance of the work available, including work clothes, knives and safety equipment. The Danish company was considered to be the Dutch meat cutters’ employer in the meaning of that concept set out in Article 14 paragraph b) of the double tax treaty entered into between Denmark and the Netherlands. When reaching this conclusion the National Tax Tribunal took into account that the Danish company had the right to the work performed as well as the right to issue instructions to the Dutch meat cutters. Furthermore, the Tribunal took into account that the work was carried out at a workplace under the Danish company’s control and responsibility, that the remuneration to the Dutch company was calculated on the basis of the hours that the hired-out meat cutters had worked for the Danish company, that tools and equipment were placed at their disposal by the Danish company and that the number of meat cutters was fixed by weekly agreements. Consequently, the Danish company was liable to withhold income tax when using hired-out Dutch meat cutters, in conformity with sections 46 and 2(1) paragraph c) of the Tax at Source Act.

Non-published practice

Example 5

This was an agreement between a Polish contractor and a Danish forest firm. According to the agreement the work to be performed by the Polish firm was:

• planting of 30,000 trees
• bottom trimming of 50,000 trees with a power cutter
• shape cutting and bud nipping of 50,000 trees
• fencing, complete of 1500 m

The first three work projects were viewed to be an agreement on the hiring out of labour, while the last one (the fencing) was approved as a fixed contract. It was taken into account that in the first three parts of the work, the payment for the work performed took place on conditions similar to piece rates and that the Danish firm was in daily contact with the Polish enterprise’s contact person at the site. What made work project 4 acceptable as a fixed contract was,

• that the contractor brought all tools, equipment and materials
• that the fencing materials were standard products
• that the contractor did not use the Danish firm’s machines and tools
• that the contract price could not exceed a maximum amount irrespective of any extra work required
• that the settlement was based on the rate of completion and not the hours of work involved

Example 6

This case was concerned with a contract made between a plant nursery and a foreign contracting party on the oculation of a total of 150,000 tree trunks at the plant nursery’s address. The work had to be commenced in July and due to climatic conditions it had to be completed before the second week of September. A fixed price had been agreed and it would be paid out at a taking rate of 80%, while for example 10% would be deducted if the rate of taking was 70%. 50% of the agreed contract sum was settled on completion of the work and the balance after 30 days, less any deduction for poor taking of the oculations. Thus, the foreign contracting party carried the risk of a loss exceeding the 20% that had been part of the calculation. The foreign contracting party did its own hiring of the workers required and paid all related expenses. The foreign contracting party was recognised as a self-employed trader, and the workers employed by him were thereby recognised as employees of the foreign enterprise and neither employed by nor hired-out to the Danish plant nursery. The agreement was therefore considered approved as a fixed contract. Thus, the Danish enterprise did not have to withhold income tax and social security contributions.

Example 7

This case was concerned with an enterprise engaged in grain cultivation and livestock raising. The owner had made an agreement with a Latvian company. Contracts were made for one month at a time and the work comprised milking, feeding and cleaning a cow house and area every day of the month concerned. The Latvian company was registered in Latvia and registered for VAT in Denmark. The workers who were sent to Denmark were not employed by the Latvian company before they were posted in Denmark. Based on the information submitted, the National Tax Tribunal found that the case was concerned with the hiring-out of labour, taking into account that the work was carried out on the farmer’s farm, that work implements and materials had been placed at the workers’ disposal by the farmer, that the day-to-day management of the work would have been the responsibility of the farmer or his employees, as the Latvian company’s presence on the farm and contact with the farmer or the employees of the company had been limited and as the agreement did not specify the work to be performed in such a way that day-to-day management could be considered unnecessary and, finally, that the Latvian company was not seen to carry any financial risk related to the performance of the work.

Conclusion

Examples 1 – 4 above are all examples of agreements which the authorities have been unable to recognise as fixed contracts. However, they met the requirements for being considered as agreements with a foreign employer on the hiring-out of labour. In example 5, only one of the agreements met the requirements for being viewed as a fixed contract, as in the case of the other agreements there was proof that the conditions for being viewed as hiring-out of labour were satisfied. The agreement in example 6 may likewise be considered to have satisfied the requirements proving that it was a fixed contract. In example 7, the situation satisfied all conditions for recognition as an agreement on the hiring-out of labour, whereby it has not been found to be proved that it is a fixed contract. The distinction for tax purposes between fixed contracts and the hiring-out of labour is thus fundamentally a question of taxation rights and this is determined by the principles governing proof and the burden of proof. The clearer an agreement is worded and the fewer elements of the agreement and the practical performance of the agreement seem to indicate that workers are hired out, the more the circumstances will substantiate that the agreement constitutes a fixed contract.

Based on the review above, the following table lists a number of requirements and conditions that should, according to precedents, be part of the agreement and be complied with in practice, if for tax purposes it has to be possible to consider an agreement as a fixed contract. It does not mean any indication, however, of whether the contractor’s activity may constitute a permanent establishment in Denmark.

 

Agreement	Danish enterprise	Workers	Foreign enterprise
The price for the contract should be agreed as a fixed price for the work performed. It may for instance be a fixed price per unit produced/ supplied – not on the basis of an hourly rate or a piece rate or a rate usually applied for settlement of pay to the Danish firm’s employees for the work they perform. If not, the proof that the agreement is a fixed contract will be impaired. The agreement should include a clear and precise description of the particular work to be performed and the time limit for its performance and completion. The agreement should include provisions defining the contractor’s liability and risk related to the work performed. The persons who are in practice involved must observe the provisions of the agreement as they are worded – provided that the provisions otherwise comply with the formal requirements for fixed contracts as stated in the review above and in this table. If this is not ensured the agreement may be expected to be set aside as a fixed contract. In the case of construction activity: A construction contract must have been entered into according to AB 93 (standard contracts containing guarantees, etc.)	It must not have been granted the management right or actually exercise it. May only to a limited extent make tools, equipment and machines available to the foreign workers. Must be given rights to complain, guarantees or similar.	Must be under instruction from the foreign employer, which will prevent, in principle, that the workers can carry out work on an equal footing with workers employed by the Danish enterprise.	Must be an established enterprise in its home state. Must itself or through a competent representative (in respect of management and professional skills) actually exercise the management right on a daily basis.  Must carry a contractor’s risk related to the work performed Should have professional insight into the work area covered by the contract, since lack of such insight will rather tend to point into the direction of the hiring-out of labour. Must, where the work requires the use of equipment and tools, make the greater part of them available to the workers, as the requirement to prove that the agreement is a fixed contract will otherwise be far more stringent.