Under the Wet DBA, the client carries payroll-tax exposure if a freelancer is in practice an employee. The Dutch tax authority has been able to enforce that since 1 January 2025, fines for intent or gross negligence are possible again in 2026, and the remaining soft-landing elements lapse on 1 January 2027. If you run engineering for a non-Dutch company with Dutch freelancers on the team, that date belongs on your plan. It's one of the questions covered in EU engineering hiring compliance: contracts, IP and GDPR.
This is general information, not legal advice. Check your own case with a Dutch adviser.
What the Wet DBA is and whether it reaches you
The Wet DBA is the Dutch law against bogus self-employment (schijnzelfstandigheid): someone invoicing as a freelancer who, in practice, works like an employee. KVK's page on the Wet DBA says that when the relationship is employment, the client must pay loonheffingen (wage tax and social contributions) and pension contributions.
Does it apply to a company with no Dutch entity? We don't have a government source on foreign clients, so we won't guess. The question turns on the facts: where the work is done, who pays whom, and what Dutch payroll-tax relationship results. That one is for a Dutch adviser before you sign anything.
Dates to plan around
| Date | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1 January 2025 | Enforcement moratorium ends; the tax authority can impose a correction obligation and back-tax assessment directly |
| 2025 | No fines imposed |
| 2026 | No omission fines; a business visit is the default first step; fines for intent or gross negligence possible again |
| 1 January 2027 | Remaining soft-landing elements lapse |
| 1 January 2028 | Target start of the Zelfstandigenwet (Self-employed Act), which would replace the Wet DBA |
| End of 2029 | Approved model agreements stop being valid |
The Belastingdienst's enforcement page states that the moratorium no longer applies since 1 January 2025, and that no fines were imposed in 2025. The Dutch government's December 2024 announcement says the same.
For 2026, a Kamerbrief (cabinet letter to parliament) of 19 December 2025 partly extends the soft landing. There are no verzuimboetes (fines for failing to meet an obligation) in 2026, and the tax authority starts in principle with a business visit. But vergrijpboetes (fines for intent or gross negligence) can be imposed again in 2026, on employers and workers alike. KVK adds that a client who deliberately uses a bogus freelancer can be fined. The same letter says that only from 1 January 2027 do those two elements fall away.
Secondary summaries sometimes say the soft landing runs "to 2027". The Kamerbrief is more precise: the 2026 arrangement ends, and the remaining elements lapse on 1 January 2027. From that date, the default of a business visit first and no omission fine no longer applies.
Beyond the table, the Zelfstandigenwet target comes from KVK, and it's a target, not law. As of the cabinet's 6 March 2026 announcement, the clarification part of an earlier bill was dropped and a Zelfstandigenwet planned. Check where that stands before you rely on it.
Who carries the risk: client or freelancer?
Both, and the client's side is the one a foreign buyer overlooks. KVK says client and contractor are jointly responsible. If the relationship is employment, the client owes the payroll taxes and pension contributions, and intentional misclassification can bring a fine for the client. The freelancer's exposure is the other half: employee status they didn't plan for.
Back-tax has a limit and an exception. The tax authority's enforcement page says a naheffing (back-tax assessment) generally doesn't reach before 1 January 2025. It can go back up to five years in cases of kwaadwillendheid (knowingly allowing an evident case of bogus self-employment to arise or continue) or where an instruction (aanwijzing) was ignored.
Our read: the cheap mistake is treating the 2027 date as the start of risk. The back-tax assessment power has been live since 2025, and the 2026 fines for intent or gross negligence apply now.
How the test plays out for a developer
The labels in the contract don't decide it. What counts is how the work happens in practice, which is also why the tax authority says its approved model agreements only give certainty if the parties work as written.
Here's our judgment, not a government checklist. Picture a developer who joins your standups, takes tickets from your engineering manager, works fixed hours on one product for a year and has a company email address. Whatever the invoice says, that looks like a team member. A freelancer who delivers a scoped module, picks their own hours and method, and serves several clients looks different. The first pattern is common in staff-augmentation setups, and it's the one to review. How much of that direction is yours to give is the subject of what clients can direct when managing nearshore developers.
Hiring a freelancer for a fixed-scope delivery is a different engagement from filling a seat on your roadmap. We cover that distinction in staff augmentation vs agency vs in-house.
Your four options, compared
| Option | Who is the employer | What remains with you |
|---|---|---|
| Direct freelancer with a contract | Nobody; the freelancer is self-employed | You carry the misclassification risk if practice looks like employment |
| Intermediary or staffing partner | Depends on how the work is done; the same rules apply via an intermediary | The duty to check for bogus self-employment, and possible liability for unpaid payroll tax |
| Employer of record (EOR) | The EOR, by design | Day-to-day direction of the work; confirm the arrangement with an adviser |
| Direct employment or own entity | You | Full employer obligations in the Netherlands |
Direct freelancer with a contract
The simplest route and the most exposed. The tax authority hasn't assessed new model agreements since 6 September 2024, as its page on bogus self-employment records. Agreements approved before then stay valid until the end of 2029 (KVK; the Belastingdienst says to 31 December 2029), but they only give certainty if the work matches the paper. A model agreement can't rescue a developer who's embedded in your team.
Intermediary or staffing partner
Adding a middleman doesn't remove the duty. The government's FAQ on bogus self-employment says that when you hire through an intermediary it's still important to check, and that the inlener (the hiring party) can be liable for unpaid payroll tax. Ask the partner in writing how they test for it, and what happens to you if they're wrong.
Employer of record
An EOR is designed to become the legal employer and run Dutch payroll, which would take the person off a freelance footing. We have no vendor-neutral government source on how the Dutch authorities treat EOR arrangements, so this is a question to put to your adviser. We also won't quote EOR prices, because we haven't found any we could verify outside vendors' own sales pages.
Direct employment or own entity
Direct employment removes the freelance-misclassification question for that person, because they're an employee. It's the route that most closely matches a developer who works as a permanent team member. Confirm the Dutch employer obligations with an adviser.
For UK buyers, the equivalent question is covered in does IR35 apply to EU contractors. Platform-based work is a separate EU regime, and German false self-employment is a different regime again. This article covers neither, but our guide to country-by-country legal requirements for hiring developers in Europe covers both.
What this means for your decision before 1 January 2027
Two decisions sit with you. First, how you engage Dutch engineers from here on. Our judgment, not legal advice: if a developer will work embedded in your team, a freelance contract is the weakest fit on the test above, and an employment route (EOR or your own entity) deserves a real comparison. Ask a Dutch adviser where your cases fall.
Second, whether to review the freelance contracts you already hold. Compare each against how the person actually works today, not what was signed. Where the two have drifted, decide before the 2027 lapse whether to change the work, the contract or the route. If finance owns the contractor budget line, send them this page.
Once the route is chosen, the next step is getting the person productive: see onboarding a contract developer in the first 14 days.
FAQ
What is the Wet DBA?
The Wet DBA is the Dutch rule set against bogus self-employment. It makes the client responsible, alongside the worker, when a supposed freelancer is in practice an employee, including for payroll taxes and pension contributions.
What is bogus self-employment?
It's a working relationship labelled freelance that functions like employment. The label on the contract isn't what counts. How the work is done in practice is.
Who is liable, the client or the freelancer?
Both, according to KVK: client and contractor are jointly responsible. The client owes payroll tax and pension contributions if the relationship is employment, and can be fined for intentional misclassification.
Are there fines yet?
None were imposed in 2025. In 2026 there are no omission fines, but fines for intent or gross negligence are possible again. The remaining soft-landing elements lapse on 1 January 2027.
Does hiring through an intermediary or EOR remove the risk?
An intermediary doesn't: the Dutch government says you should still check, and the hiring party can be liable for unpaid payroll tax. An EOR changes who the employer is, so the question becomes how the arrangement is set up. Put that to a Dutch adviser.