ASAP
Dutch Self-Employed Persons Act: Clarity at Last After Ten Years?
“Can I safely hire this self-employed person?” This has been a frequent client question in recent years.
This is not because they don’t want to work with self-employed individuals. On the contrary. But there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the classification of employment relationships in the Netherlands. When is someone truly self-employed, and when does it turn out, in hindsight, that an employment contract was in place after all?
That uncertainty has consequences. Incorrect classification can lead to additional payroll tax assessments and fines for a client, among other things. We see the result in practice: organizations are becoming more cautious about hiring self-employed individuals.
After years of debate, the new Dutch Self-Employed Persons Act is set to change that.
Knowing where you stand in advance
On October 1, 2026, the online consultation for the Self-Employed Persons Act began. The goal sounds promising: greater clarity for both self-employed individuals and clients.
To that end, the bill introduces two tests: the self-employment test and the employment relationship test.
The self-employment test focuses on the entrepreneur or worker. According to the proposal, it considers three points:
- The worker has had at least three clients in the current calendar year and the previous calendar year;
- The worker spends a minimum amount on provisions to cover business risks; and
- The basic requirements for working as a self-employed person are met.
In the third category, consider, for example, registration with the Chamber of Commerce, a VAT number, and a separate bank account for business transactions.
But simply being an entrepreneur is not enough. The specific assignment must also be consistent with self-employment.
The employment relationship test then examines the specific assignment. This involves four criteria that must be met:
- The parties wish to work outside the framework of an employment contract;
- The self-employed individual has freedom in performing the work;
- The self-employed person has freedom in determining working hours and the workplace (except for location-bound and time-bound work); and
- The self-employed person works at their own expense and risk.
The exact details of several criteria still need to be worked out and may change during the legislative process.
When do the tests provide certainty?
Anyone who meets both tests is assured that they are not working under supervision, meaning no employment contract exists. The government refers to this as a “safe harbor.”
In addition, the “sham arrangement” principle still applies: If, during the course of the assignment, both tests are no longer met in practice, the safe harbor may no longer apply.
If both tests are not met, that does not automatically mean an employment contract exists. In that case, the safe harbor simply does not apply, and the employment relationship must be assessed according to the existing assessment framework.
With these criteria, the Self-Employed Persons Act introduces a new approach designed to provide greater clarity upfront. This allows the parties to better assess whether they can work together as a client and a self-employed person.
Clarity at last?
That remains to be seen in the coming period. This is still a draft bill. The online consultation runs through October 29, 2026, so the proposal may still change before it ultimately becomes law. Interested parties can submit feedback on the proposal via the online consultation (click here).
But above all, it is hoped there is an end in sight to an issue that has been preoccupying clients and self-employed individuals for about ten years.
The need we see in our practice is actually very simple: Clients want to be able to hire self-employed professionals without having to worry that, years later, it will turn out they did it wrong. And self-employed professionals want to be able to do business without constantly being asked whether a client still dares to hire them.
Whether this Self-Employed Persons Act is the solution remains to be seen. But after years of debate, clarity from the outset would already be a significant step forward.
