Wet DBA enforcement looks at practice, not paperwork — and practice lives in your operations data
The Belastingdienst does not only read the contract. It examines how the work was actually carried out. That makes schijnzelfstandigheid an operations-records question as much as a legal one.
Dutch enforcement of the Wet DBA restarted in early 2025 after a long pause. From 1 January 2026 serious-fault penalties (vergrijpboetes) became possible, while the cabinet confirmed that default penalties (verzuimboetes) would not be imposed for false self-employment during 2026; inspections in principle begin with a site visit that can result in a warning rather than an immediate books audit, with back-levying of wage taxes possible retroactively from 1 January 2025. Healthcare, childcare and construction are named risk sectors. Confirm the current position with your Dutch adviser — this area has moved repeatedly and will move again with the VBAR debate.
The operationally important part is consistent across every version of the rules: inspectors weigh how the collaboration actually ran, not what the model agreement said it would. Embedding, direction, substitutability, who sets the schedule, whether the worker carries commercial risk — the answers are in assignment records, scheduling logs and payment history, or they are in nobody's memory.
What an inspection asks of your systems
| Question in practice | Where the answer should live |
|---|---|
| Who set the schedule, and could the worker decline? | Offer and acceptance records per assignment, including declines and their consequences |
| Was the worker directed like staff? | Instruction and supervision artefacts — briefings, check-ins, escalation paths |
| Could the work be delegated? | Substitution requests and how they were handled |
| How was pay determined? | Rate history per assignment, including who could change it and when |
| How long, and how continuously, did this run? | Assignment duration and density per worker, per client |
Structured intake is the cheapest control here. When a client request arrives as free text in WhatsApp and becomes a spreadsheet row, the facts of the engagement are lost at the first step. When intake produces a structured assignment record — scope, rate, schedule ownership, substitution terms — the evidence assembles itself as a by-product of running the business.
The realistic exposure calculation
Operators tend to model the fine and stop. The larger numbers are usually elsewhere: retroactive wage-tax levies from January 2025 onwards, the cost of re-papering and re-onboarding a population of workers under time pressure, and the client-side reaction when an end user decides your model creates their risk. Against that, the cost of holding better records per assignment is small — and the same records shorten every future audit.
Where we fit
ShiftMargin does not give Dutch tax advice and does not sell a compliance product. We automate the workflows that happen to generate the record: structured client intake, assignment and rate history, verified attendance, and payment trails that reconcile to both worker and client. The commercial case is cost to serve; the audit posture is what comes with it. For operators also facing the Platform Work Directive transposition in December 2026, the two obligations want largely the same underlying records.
Nothing here is tax or legal advice. Wet DBA enforcement policy and the VBAR legislative track are both moving; verify the current position with a Dutch adviser before acting.
Questions operators ask
Are fines actually being issued in 2026?
Serious-fault penalties became possible from 1 January 2026, while the cabinet confirmed default penalties would not be imposed for false self-employment during 2026, and inspections in principle start with a site visit and possible warning. Back-levying of wage taxes can reach back to 1 January 2025. Check the current position with a Dutch adviser.
Does a signed model agreement protect us?
Not on its own. The Belastingdienst examines how the collaboration was actually performed, so a model agreement contradicted by day-to-day practice offers limited protection. The operational records are what corroborate or undermine it.
Which sectors are being looked at most closely?
Reporting points to healthcare, childcare and construction as named risk sectors, which is where high volumes of self-employed workers meet client-directed schedules.
What records are worth adding first?
Structured assignment records at intake — scope, rate, who owns the schedule, substitution terms — plus offer, acceptance and decline history per worker. Those answer most of what an inspector asks and cost little to capture if intake is automated.
The records an inspector wants are the ones automation produces anyway.
A two-week Ops Audit shows where your intake, assignment and payment records break — and what automating intake would save you per filled shift while closing the gap.
Request a free 30-minute teardown →