Company did not pay social security contributions

Company did not pay social security contributions

It is possible to be self-employed and dependent at the same time? What at first glance seems like a contradiction is in fact not so rare. When self-employed small businesses or freelancers realize that their income is not enough, they can look for a job at another company – as a kind of part-time job. Important: then contributions to pension and unemployment insurance must also be paid. This was exactly what one company had failed to do. The 43-year-old manager was fined 50 daily rates of 30 euros each (1,500 euros) in criminal proceedings. He objected to the decision, which led to a criminal trial at the district court in habfurt.

Qualified employees
The defendant owner of the company described the circumstances in which it occurred. When his company, which employs around 20 people, urgently needed a technician at the beginning of 2011, a qualified applicant stepped forward. During the interview, the boss learned that his counterpart was already working as a self-employed gardener. However, due to his self-employment, his time was not fully utilized and earnings in the gardening industry were low, especially in the winter months.

Nevertheless, the applicant did not want to give up his one-man business, but was looking for an additional source of income that was as flexible as possible. This made sense to the defendant. In principle, he supported people who tried to do business on their own responsibility, he explained his reasons for doing so. It was agreed that the bidder would take over the fleet and organize the company's transport on its own initiative.

However, the operational reality was different: by the end of 2011, the "subcontractor" had received a salary of around was given work instructions by other employees, was involved in the company's organization, kept hourly records and often worked seven to eight hours at the company. Ergo, the work in the company was a pseudo-self-employment, he was in fact employed on the black market, even if the "concept" was not clear, as the accused pointed out, the situation was quite different.

The warrant has the force of law
Judge roland wiltschka took him at his word, but ignorance is no protection against punishment. In this context, lawyers speak of a prohibition error, i.E. Ignorance of the illegality or punishability of one's own behavior. Such an error is not punished only in a few exceptions. Company owners who are not sure whether a certain activity is a pseudo-self-employment should initiate a so-called inquiry or status procedure with the health insurance fund before hiring the employee.

In the present case, almost 3000 euros in social security contributions were wrongly not deducted. In the meantime, the accused has long since made up for it. However, as it became clear that the sentence would by no means be lower than the penalty order, the CEO, who appeared with his lawyer, grudgingly withdrew his objection to the penalty order of 1,500 euros. This is therefore legally valid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PHP Code Snippets Powered By :