We have written before about changes to labour law affecting tax matters. Tax authorities are now scrutinising compliance with local and international law that provides for giving posted workers employment conditions that are consistent with the host country’s national law, including prescribed working hours, rest periods, protection at work and minimum pay. This article explores the rules governing pay and their tax implications.
Section 14(2.5) of the Latvian Employment Act provides that in the case of a worker posting the concept and mandatory elements of pay should be determined according to the law or practice of the country the worker is posted to. A similar procedure applies to workers being posted to work in Latvia: pay is governed by the Employment Act and other Latvian laws relating to pay.
The definition of posting and related requirements have been passed into the Employment Act by transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (as amended by Directive 2018/957). The directive aims to create a legal basis for equal treatment of local and posted workers across the EU by prescribing:
The directive is applied in order to provide workers that are posted temporarily to work abroad while keeping their current employment contract, with minimum labour protection levels in the host country. How this framework originated and evolved is partly linked to the fight against cheap labour in member states that pay comparatively higher remuneration levels, and seeks to resolve inequality across the EU.
Accordingly, a posted worker is entitled to at least the minimum wage at the host country’s level.
In practice the SRS has started checking how these requirements are met by first assessing whether a worker’s business trip qualifies as a posting:
If a foreign assignment is to qualify as a posting:
Thus, having identified a worker posting, the SRS will check that the worker was paid the minimum or a higher wage for the relevant period according to the host country’s national law.
It’s important to note that under the directive, when the remuneration paid to the posted worker is compared with the remuneration due according to the host country’s law or practice, we should refer to the gross remuneration and compare total gross amounts, not separate basic elements.
When it comes to charging taxes, the SRS will levy only the additional amount payable to the government. What we see in practice is that in similar cases the SRS will engage the National Labour Office, which is required to ensure not only that taxes are paid on the appropriate remuneration but also that the remuneration is actually paid to the worker.
If the remuneration is found to fall short of the host country’s minimum level, the SRS may charge an additional tax on the relevant amount. Information on this minimum level is available to the SRS through the exchange of information with foreign tax authorities.
As regards the country of tax payment, we should assess whether the conditions that allow the person to continue paying personal income tax in their country of tax residence based on exclusions under article 15(2) of double tax treaties are met, or whether income tax is payable in the host country. In the latter case, either the payer of income or the worker may have to register for paying taxes, depending on the host country’s national rules.
In the case of a posting, it’s worth taking out an A1 certificate, which allows the worker to remain socially insured in their home country (this is issued for a period of two years, with the option of renewal).
This topic may raise some questions. According to the directive’s preamble, a daily allowance associated with a business assignment often serves several purposes. To the extent its purpose is to reimburse expenses incurred during the business assignment (e.g. money spent on travel, meals and accommodation), the daily allowance should not be treated as a part of the remuneration. The member states have discretion to lay down rules for reimbursing such expenses according to their own national law or practice. The employer should reimburse such expenses to posted workers according to the national law or practice relating to employment relationships.
The Employment Act provides that a posting is governed by the law that regulates the reimbursement of business trip expenses, meaning a daily allowance must be paid during the posting. However, the rules make the following restrictions:
- the worker is provided with three meals a day, or
- the remuneration payable to the worker equals what is paid to a comparable worker in the host country.
So Latvian law prescribes the right to pay a daily allowance of up to 30% in the case of a posting or none at all if conditions are met.
However, our assessment of the Latvian legal framework leads to the conclusion that the daily allowance is not treated as a part of the remuneration, which follows from both the Employment Act’s definition and the case law. Thus, given its compensatory nature, the daily allowance should not be added to the remuneration in assessing whether this meets the host country’s minimum pay level requirements.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionOn 18 April 2023 the Supreme Court ruled on case No. A420131521 concerning the classification of non-business expenses for corporate income tax (CIT) purposes, application of the concept of labour lease, and additional taxes charged by the State Revenue Service (SRS) in the construction sector, where subcontracted labour was used. By its ruling the Supreme Court refused the company’s request for reversal of the SRS’s decision, which remains unchanged and has taken effect. We feel MindLink subscribers should become familiar with this decision by which the SRS charged CIT and national social insurance (NSI) contributions, as well as a late fee and a penalty. For personal income tax (PIT) purposes, only a penalty was charged.
This statement does not seem to make sense and is contrary to what the law says about capital gains tax being payable only on income that results from a disposal of real estate (RE). However, a certain taxpayer had to fight in court for his right to be exempt from a tax liability on an RE disposal.
During the pandemic, Latvian companies faced unprecedented challenges around remote working, when the entire corporate culture came up for overhaul. The biggest challenges arose from the need for flexibility as the traditional eight-hour working day at the office was upgraded with the option to connect remotely at the employee’s convenience. Some companies cancelled the full-time office presence requirement altogether and set up alternative working arrangements with variable hours, places and conditions. Flexibility became a key aspect in keeping employees motivated and loyal. This article explores the rapid development of flexible reward schemes.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.