                             højesterets dom
                           afsagt tirsdag den 17. april 2012
sag 257/2010
(2. afdeling)
skare meat packers k/s
(advokat arne møllin ottosen)
mod
skatteministeriet
(kammeradvokaten ved advokat kim lundgaard hansen)
i tidligere instans er afsagt dom af vestre landsrets 3. afdeling den 31. august 2010.
i pådømmelsen har deltaget fem dommere: per walsøe, jytte scharling, jon stokholm, hanne
schmidt og lars hjortnæs.
påstande
appellanten, skare meat packers k/s, har gentaget sin påstand.
indstævnte, skatteministeriet, har påstået stadfæstelse.
supplerende sagsfremstilling
i det hollandske finansministeriums brev af 30. marts 1998 til skatteministeriet hedder det:
       ”with reference to the competent authority consideration pursuant to the mutual
       agreement procedure of the 1957 netherlands-danish treaty for the avoidance of
       double taxation (the treaty), i would like to ask your attention for the following.
       i have been informed that the danish customs and tax directorate has announced in a
       decision of 18 february 1997 (tss 99/97-4061-425) that it has changed its position on
       the treatment of international hiring-out of labour under our treaty. denmark would
       consider the user of hired-out labour to be the employer, due to the fact that the nether-
       lands did not enter any observation or reservation on the concept of „hiring-out of la-
                                          - 2 -
bour‟ in paragraph 8 of the commentary on article 15. according to the information, a
resident of the netherlands hired out to work in denmark would as a rule be taxable in
denmark on his employment income from day one on.
with respect to this matter, i would like to be informed whether the information i re-
ceived is right. if so, i would like to point out that denmark did not settle this issue first
in mutual agreement between the netherlands and denmark and therefore the nether-
lands is not bound in any way to act correspondingly.
last february there have been, as you know, renewed discussions within „working
party 1‟ of the oecd about the international hiring-out of labour. from those discus-
sions it is clear as yet there is no common understanding with respect to this subject. it
is for that reason that i want you to know my views.
in general, the 183-day rule will be applied if a resident of a state is working as an em-
ployee in another state. from this rule of paragraph 2 of article 15 in the oecd model
convention, it follows that the remuneration which is derived by the employee, in such
a case, shall be taxable only in the state of residence, if all three conditions are fulfilled.
with respect to the second condition, for which the issue of „international hiring-out of
labour‟ is adopted, it is of importance to conclude how to interpret the term “employer”.
for the definition of the term “employer” in the context of the convention, substance
should prevail over form. it means that, in accordance with the oecd commentary,
“each case should be examined to see whether the functions of employer were exercised
mainly by the intermediary or by the user”. with a view to this note in the oecd
commentary it is only under the circumstances as described in the commentary to con-
sider whether the functions of employer were exercised by the intermediary or user.
therefore, it is to my opinion not in conformity with the oecd-commentary to con-
sider the user as the employer in all cases, which seems to be the intent of the afore-
mentioned danish decision. to the contrary, each case should be examined to see
whether the functions of employer were exercised mainly by the intermediary or by the
user. it is therefore, according to the oecd-commentary, up to the contracting states
to agree on the situations in which the intermediary does not fulfil the conditions re-
quired for him to be considered as the employer within the meaning of paragraph 2. it is
this restricted approach, which limits the room for source taxation in general to abusive
situations where the formal employment relation with the hirer of the labour is only
meant as a means for evading taxation by the source state, that has the netherlands con-
sent and was the base for the netherlands for not entering into an observation, unlike
switzerland.
without an agreement about the issue of „international hiring-out of labour‟ between the
netherlands and denmark, any divergence in interpretation could lead to double taxa-
tion or, under our new treaty, exemption. a resident of denmark who is hired out to
work in the netherlands could, according to the aforementioned danish decision, be ex-
empt of tax in the netherlands if his stay does not last more than 183 days and could
also be exempt of tax in denmark as a result of the fact that the dutch user of the labour
is deemed to be the employer. in the other case where a resident of the netherlands is
hired out to work in denmark in the same way, there could be double taxation. as a
matter of fact i have all ready been informed by dutch companies of their worries about
the possibility of double taxation. perhaps cases of double taxation between the neth-
erlands and denmark have already been brought to your attention as well.
                                               - 3 -
      to prevent such double taxation or exemption, i would appreciate to hear about your
      opinion in this matter soon, especially to see to which extent there is a possible diver-
      gence of characterization between the netherlands and denmark.”
i skatteministeriets brev af 24. august 1998 til det hollandske finansministerium hedder det:
      ”thank you for your letter of 30 march 1998, concerning hiring out of labour, and the
      danish customs and tax directorates decision of 18 february 1997 (tss 99/97-4061-
      425).
      from the letter it seems, that you are of the opinion, that the tax directorate has
      changed the interpretation of the term “employer” when applying the netherlands-da-
      nish treaty, to cases of international hiring-out of labour.
      the situation is somewhat different. sometime around 1987, the netherlands competent
      authorities had the view that the 183-days rule should be applicable even in cases of
      hiring-out of labour. in other words, the hiring-out of labour concept was not recognized
      by the netherlands at that time in relation to the application of the netherlands-danish
      treaty.
      as a consequence of this, the danish tax authorities were instructed in 87, that the rules
      of international hiring-out of labour should not be used in relation to the netherlands-
      danish treaty.
      the decision of 18 february 1997 to which you are referring, states, that since there is
      no reservation from the netherlands to the commentaries to the latest oecd-model,
      article 15, this means, that the rules of international hiring-out of labour are applicable
      to the netherlands-danish treaty.
      this follows in our understanding the general principle, that older treaties are inter-
      preted dynamically in accordance with the development in the oecd model-treaty
      when it comes to broader and more precise descriptions in the commentaries of the ap-
      plication of the articles of the model. since the netherlands hasn‟t a reservation to ar-
      ticle 15 as far as the commentaries dealing with international hiring-out of labour are
      concerned, we see this as a general acceptance on your part of the concept as described
      in the commentaries. this is also the reason why we haven‟t approached you through a
      mutual agreement procedure on this matter.
      the decision of 18 february 1997 expressly refers to the guidelines and criterions laid
      down in paragraph 8 of the commentaries to article 15 of the oecd-model, as far as
      the understanding of “international hiring-out of labour” is concerned. it is not a ques-
      tion of replacing one understanding of “employer” with a new one. nor do we consider
      the user in all cases as the employer. as a matter of fact i have difficulties in finding
      any deviations in principle between our interpretations.
      this being said there might of course be individual cases, where there are of different
      opinions based on the facts and circumstances of the cases. i am sure, that such cases
                                                  - 4 -
       can be solved through mutual agreement, since no one is interested in creating double
       exemption or double taxation.
       so to repeat once more what it is all about. from not using the rules of international hir-
       ing-out of labour at all, effective from 1997 we apply those rules in relation to the neth-
       erlands-danish treaty, but strictly within the framework of paragraph 8 of the com-
       mentaries to article 15 of the oecd-model.
       i hope this explanation is satisfactory to you. if you see any difficulties please do not
       hesitate to write me again.”
i det hollandske finansministeriums brev af 25. maj 1999 til skatteministeriet hedder det bl.a.:
       ”thank you for your above-mentioned letter, concerning international hiring out of la-
       bour, which issue i brought to you attention in my letter of 30 march 1998. i would like
       to respond to your letter and also inform you on some actual cases of double taxation
       that we meanwhile have received.
       i would like to explain more extensively why the netherlands did not enter any obser-
       vation or reservation on the concept of international hiring out of labour in paragraph 8
       of the commentary on article 15. i consider this explanation important as this was for
       denmark the immediate cause to change its rules of international hiring-out of labour in
       relation to the netherlands.
       the way international hiring-out of labour should be applied depends to a large extent
       on how the term “employer” should be interpreted. the term “employer” in article 15
       of the oecd model, as we see it, refers primarily to the definition under domestic law.
       under dutch domestic law employment is primarily a formal concept. as a conse-
       quence, labour agencies, for example, are legally recognized to be employers already
       since the early fifties. in practice, following the formal concept of the term “employer”
       implies in general that also the conditions of the material concept of paragraph 8 of the
       oecd-commentary have been fulfilled. to that effect, i can inform you that in the
       netherlands the same “substance over form” approach is being followed as in paragraph
       8 of the oecd-commentary if it occurs that the employer is only a intermediary and in
       fact does not fulfil any of the vital functions of the employer according to the material
       concept. it is this “substance over form” approach that we fully subscribe and for which
       it was not considered necessary to make any observation or reservation to the oecd
       commentary. i have to add that although this “substance over form” approach is not re-
       stricted to abusive cases, in many situations it will have a bearing on such cases.
       although the netherlands fully subscribe the commentary, it is probably being read dif-
       fently than in denmark. reference can be made to the differences in both our domestic
       law on the interpretation of the term “employer”. also within the oecd the discussion
       on the scope of the commentary in this issue is still pending; an unambiguous interpre-
       tation is not yet achieved. this means that the issue has to be solved in bilateral agree-
       ment.
                                                - 5 -
       the term “employer” refers primarily to the definition under domestic law. in case of
       conflicting rules in contracting states, as is the case between the netherlands and den-
       mark, the material concept described in the commentary serves as a tie-braker rule. ac-
       cording to the commentary, in those conflicting situations each case should be ex-
       amined to see whether the functions of employer were exercised mainly by the interme-
       diary or by the user. and it is up to the contracting states to agree on the situations in
       which the intermediary does not fulfil the conditions required for him to be considered
       as the employer within the meaning of paragraph 2 of article 15. for that purpose i
       would appreciate it if you could give me an explanation on the circumstances under
       which denmark considers the user as the employer. further, i would like to learn from
       you which criteria in your opinions could drive as a base for mutual agreement on those
       cases in which the intermediary is considered not to fulfil the conditions required for
       him to be considered as the employer.
       …
       the other case concerns flexmen projecten b.v., that has 10-12 employees working in
       denmark for skare meatpackers in vejen, denmark. flexmen is a netherlands labour
       agency with approcimately 1.000 employees. most of them are employed in the neth-
       erlands. as i already mentioned, in the netherlands labour agencies are legally recog-
       nized to be employers already since the early fifties. in fact the labour agencies have,
       like many other industrial and public sectors, there own collective labour agreement
       which reflects the working conditions of all employees that work in the labour agencies
       sector. the background of such an labour agency is that employees are fully employed
       as a result of their permanent appointment with this agency. such a specialized agency
       deploys their staff to their customers who need employees on a temporary basis. flex-
       men is ultimately responsible for their employees that are deployed at other enterprises.
       they are responsible for the work that is performed and are in position to appoint or fire
       any employee. the fee for the work that is charged by flexmen is calculated on the
       amount of actual working hours, provided that a certain production figure is achieved. if
       this production figure is not achieved a lower fee will be charged. flexmen is responsi-
       ble for the remuneration of the employees for their work in denmark. with respect to
       this remuneration, flexmen has actually paid in the netherlands wages tax on behalf of
       the employees. from the tax adviser of flexmen i learned that on the issue of taxation in
       denmark discussion with the danish authorities is still pending. when also in denmark
       wages tax or income tax will be levied on the income of the dutch employees. i would
       appreciate if you could consider, since already tax has been paid on the income in the
       netherlands, to give a deferral on the recovery of the tax burden in denmark until we
       have solved the double taxation in mutual agreement. if such a mutual agreement pro-
       cedure would result in a taxing right for denmark, the netherlands could lend assistance
       in the collection of these danish taxes if it occurs to be necessary.”
i den hollandske højesterets dom nr. 38.950 af 1. december 2006 hedder det i rettens præmis-
ser bl.a. (dansk oversættelse):
       ”3.1.1. den pågældende var skattepligtig i nederlandene i årene 1995 og 1996 i hele
       året. i det [sic] pågældende år var han ansat i et nederlandsk selskab (i det følgende kal-
       det ‟anpartsselskabet‟), som er en del af en international koncern. koncernen har dat-
                                         - 6 -
terselskaber i flere europæiske lande, herunder danmark. selskaberne i koncernen ud-
sender medarbejdere til koncernselskaber i andre lande med henblik på der at udføre ar-
bejde. i den forbindelse debiterer det udlejende selskab det lejende selskab for forud
aftalte faste beløb pr. dag, udsendelsen varer. disse faste beløb er opbygget på samme
måde som de faste beløb, der anvendes i forbindelse med eksterne kunder, der lejer per-
sonale, nemlig de gennemsnitlige lønomkostninger, opgjort pr. dag, for medarbejdere i
samme kategori som den pågældende.
3.1.2. i 1995 og 1996 har den pågældende været udsendt til danmark i henholdsvis fire-
ogtredive og tyve dage. i danmark har han udført arbejde på on- og offshore boresteder
tilhørende anpartsselskabets danske søsterselskab. den pågældende har fået udbetalt
vederlaget for det af den pågældende udførte arbejde i danmark af anpartsselskabet.
anpartsselskabet har i forbindelse med dette arbejde i henhold til den ovenfor under
punkt 3.1.1 omhandlede videredebiteringsaftale pr. udsendelsesdag debiteret sit danske
søsterselskab for et beløb stort usd 600.
3.2. i kassationsanken er tvistigheden begrænset til spørgsmålet, om beskatningen af
den pågældendes indkomster af dennes arbejde i danmark i medfør af den dansk-ne-
derlandske dobbeltbeskatningsaftale af 20. februar 1957, som ændret den 20. januar
1966 (i det følgende kaldet ‟dobbeltbeskatningsaftalen‟), skal tillægges danmark eller
nederlandene. gerechtshof har kendt for ret, at retten til at beskatte disse indkomster
tilkommer nederlandene.
dette bestrides med anbringendet.
3.3.1. dobbeltbeskatningsaftalens artikel 14 omhandler hvem, det tilkommer at beskatte
vederlag oppebåret for arbejde eller tjenesteydelser. såfremt der er tale om vederlag for
arbejde, der er udført som led i varetagelsen af et ansættelsesforhold (som i nærværende
tilfælde), er det nærliggende at opfatte ”en fysisk person eller et selskab”, som om-
handlet i dobbeltbeskatningsaftalens artikel 14, litra b, som ”arbejdsgiver”.
3.3.2. for at en fysisk person eller et selskab skal kunne betragtes som arbejdsgiver, er i
den forbindelse påkrævet, at den pågældende arbejdstager med hensyn til udøvelsen af
sit arbejde i beskæftigelsesstaten indgår i et over-/underordnelsesforhold til denne per-
son (jf. nederlandenes højesterets afgørelse af 28. februar 2003, nr. 37224, i bnb
[”retspraksis i skattesager”] 2004/138). i den omstændighed, at der skal være tale om en
arbejdsgiver, ligger endvidere implicit kravet om, at arbejdet skal udføres for den på-
gældende persons eller for det pågældende selskabs regning og risiko. det sidstnævnte
krav indebærer, at udgifterne til arbejdet (det arbejdsvederlag, der betales til
arbejdstageren for det pågældende arbejde) bæres af denne ”arbejdsgiver”, samt at det
er denne ”arbejdsgiver”, der oppebærer fortjenesten af arbejdet og bærer de risici og tab,
der hidrører fra arbejdet (jf. nederlandenes højesterets afgørelse af 12. oktober 2001,
nr. 35478, i bnb [”retspraksis i skattesager”] 2002/65).
3.3.3. hvis vederlaget for det arbejde, der er udført i beskæftigelsesstaten, er udbetalt af
en arbejdsgiver i den anden stat, er det en betingelse for spørgsmålet, om arbejdsveder-
laget er afholdt af en arbejdsgiver i beskæftigelsesstaten, at arbejdsgiveren i den anden
stat individualiseret har videredebiteret de pågældende udgifter til arbejdsgiveren i be-
skæftigelsesstaten. i forbindelse med denne videredebitering kan tages udgangspunkt i
de for arbejdstageren generelt beregnede lønomkostninger pr. tidsenhed, for eksempel et
beløb pr. dag.
                                                 - 7 -
      3.4. gerechtshof har for sin afgørelse, at det er nederlandene, der har ret til at beskatte
      den pågældendes indkomster af dennes arbejde i danmark, lagt til grund, at den pågæl-
      dendes arbejde i danmark blev udført for eller til gavn for anpartsselskabet, og at der
      ikke synes at være nogen grund til, at der i den forbindelse ikke skulle kunne tillægges
      væsentlig betydning til den mellem anpartsselskabet og den pågældende gældende an-
      sættelseskontrakt, der også omfatter den pågældendes arbejde i udlandet. det fremgår af
      præmisserne 3.3.1 til og med 3.3.3, at gerechtshof ved at træffe sin afgørelse som gen-
      givet ovenfor, har anlagt en urigtig retsopfattelse. anbringendet er således at tage til
      følge. gerechtshofs afgørelse vil være at ophæve.
      3.5.1. nederlandenes højesteret kan afgøre det stridspunkt, der er omhandlet ovenfor
      under 3.2. gerechtshof har lagt til grund - hvilket er ubestridt i kassationsanken - (præ-
      mis 4.5), at den pågældende under sit arbejde i danmark har måttet rette sig efter kon-
      krete anvisninger fra anpartsselskabets danske søsterselskab. det må herefter konklude-
      res, at den pågældende indgik i et over-/underordnelsesforhold til det danske søstersel-
      skab. gerechtshof har endvidere lagt til grund - hvilket ligeledes er ubestridt i kassa-
      tionsanken - (præmis 4.5), at dette søsterselskab er ansvarligt for resultatet af den på-
      gældendes arbejde. dermed har gerechtshof åbenbart (også) sigtet til, at fortjenesten af
      arbejdet blev oppebåret af det danske søsterselskab, og at de risici og tab, der hidrører
      fra arbejdet, blev båret af dette. det er desuden godtgjort, at anpartsselskabet i forbin-
      delse med udlejningen af den pågældende pr. dag, udsendelsen varede, har debiteret det
      danske søsterselskab for et beløb, der er baseret på de gennemsnitlige lønomkostninger
      for medarbejdere i samme kategori som den pågældende. betingelsen om, at lønom-
      kostningerne individualiseret er videredebiteret til arbejdsgiveren i beskæftigelsesstaten,
      er hermed opfyldt. det følger af ovenstående, at anpartsselskabets danske søsterselskab
      med hensyn til det arbejde, som den pågældende har udført i danmark, er at betragte
      som den pågældendes arbejdsgiver, hvilket medfører, at retten til at beskatte den pågæl-
      dendes indkomster af dette arbejde tilkommer danmark i medfør af dobbeltbeskat-
      ningsaftalens artikel 14”
den hollandske højesteret traf samme dag en tilsvarende afgørelse vedrørende indkomståret
1997 (dom nr. 38.850 af 1. december 2006).
højesterets begrundelse og resultat
vedrørende spørgsmålet om pligt til at indeholde a-skat
de hollandske slagtere, som skare meat packers k/s bl.a. i 1997 og 1998 fik stillet til rådig-
hed af flexmen projecten b.v. for at udføre arbejde her i landet, var, bedømt efter kildeskat-
telovens regler om arbejdsudleje, begrænset skattepligtige til danmark, og der var tale om a-
indkomst, jf. lovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c, og § 43, stk. 2, litra h.
den dagældende dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst mellem danmark og holland indeholder i
artikel 14 en bestemmelse, hvorefter retten til at beskatte lønindtægt undtagelsesvis tilkommer
                                                  - 8 -
bopælslandet – og ikke som efter hovedreglen det land, hvor arbejdet er udført – bl.a. på be-
tingelse af, at arbejdstageren har opholdt sig i højst 183 dage inden for et år i det land, hvor
arbejdet er udført, jf. litra a, og at arbejdet er udført for eller på vegne af en person eller et
selskab, der ikke er hjemmehørende i det land, hvor arbejdet er udført, jf. litra b. overens-
komsten indeholder ingen definition af udtrykket ”udført for”, og højesteret tiltræder, at det
efter ordlyden må anses for et åbent spørgsmål, om arbejdsudleje skulle henføres til undtagel-
sesreglen eller hovedreglen. der er endvidere ikke oplysninger om, at staterne, da overens-
komsten blev indgået, gjorde sig nogen forestillinger herom. højesteret tiltræder herefter, at
udtrykket ”udført for” ved danmarks anvendelse af overenskomsten skal have den betydning,
som det har efter dansk lovgivning, medmindre andet følger af sammenhængen, jf. overens-
komstens artikel 2, stk. 2.
skare meat packers har gjort gældende, at danmark var uberettiget til uden forudgående af-
tale med holland med virkning fra 1997 at anvende kildeskattelovens regler om arbejdsudleje
i forhold til arbejdsudleje fra holland og dermed beskatte de hollandske slagteres løn, idet
danmark og holland i 1987 havde indgået en aftale om at fortolke overenskomstens artikel
14, litra b, således, at 183-dages reglen i litra a fandt anvendelse ved arbejdsudleje, og idet de
to lande fra 1987 også fulgte en fælles praksis, der byggede på en sådan enighed om fortolk-
ningen.
højesteret finder, at der efter bevisførelsen ikke er grundlag for at antage, at danmark og
holland i 1987 (eller senere) har indgået en aftale om fortolkningen af overenskomstens arti-
kel 14 i forhold til arbejdsudleje, eller at de to lande har fulgt en fælles praksis, som byggede
på, at de var enige om fortolkningen af overenskomsten i forhold til arbejdsudleje. det, der
skete, var, at danmark på daværende tidspunkt besluttede ikke at anvende kildeskattelovens
regler om arbejdsudleje i forhold til lande, der havde tilkendegivet, at de ved arbejdsudleje
anså udlejeren for at være arbejdstagerens arbejdsgiver.
højesteret finder endvidere, at det efter indholdet af brevvekslingen fra 1998 og følgende år
mellem de hollandske og danske skattemyndigheder og efter udfaldet af dommene afsagt af
den hollandske højesteret i 2006 må lægges til grund, at holland i 1997, da danmark ændrede
den nævnte praksis i forhold til holland, ikke (længere) i alle tilfælde anså udlejeren for at
være arbejdstagerens arbejdsgiver og dermed den, som arbejdet blev udført for. højesteret
                                                - 9 -
finder, at det på grundlag heraf må antages, at der ikke forelå en kollision mellem hollandsk
og dansk beskatningsret, men alene en uenighed mellem de danske og hollandske skattemyn-
digheder om den konkrete bedømmelse af den foreliggende sag.
herefter og i øvrigt af de grunde, landsretten har anført, tiltræder højesteret, at skare meat
packers i den omtvistede periode var indeholdelsespligtig ved udbetaling af a-indkomst til de
hollandske slagtere, jf. kildeskattelovens § 46, stk. 1, 2. pkt.
vedrørende spørgsmålet om hæftelse for manglende indeholdelse af a-skat
sagen drejer sig for højesteret om perioden fra den 1. november 1997 til den 31. december
1998. skare meat packers var bekendt med grundlaget for, at vederlagene til de hollandske
slagtere var a-indkomst i medfør af kildeskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c, jf. § 43, stk. 1, litra h.
herefter og i øvrigt af de grunde, der er anført af landsretten, tiltræder højesteret, at selskabet
er ansvarlig for manglende indeholdelse af a-skat i den nævnte periode, jf. kildeskattelovens
§ 69, stk. 1. det kan ikke føre til et andet resultat, at der i 1998 var drøftelser mellem de dan-
ske og hollandske skattemyndigheder om, hvilket af de to lande der i medfør af dobbeltbe-
skatningsoverenskomsten havde ret til at beskatte ved arbejdsudleje.
                                       thi kendes for ret:
landsrettens dom stadfæstes.
i sagsomkostninger for højesteret skal skare meat packers k/s betale 75.000 kr. til skatte-
ministeriet.
sagsomkostningsbeløbene skal betales inden 14 dage efter denne højesteretsdoms afsigelse og
forrentes efter rentelovens § 8 a.
