On 20 April 2022 the Regional Administrative Court again ruled on a dispute between a Latvian company and the State Revenue Service (SRS) about refunding overpaid personal income tax in a situation of double taxation. This court ruling follows the Supreme Court Administrative Division’s ruling No. A420282416 of 9 July 2020 (SKA-150/2020). The Regional Administrative Court’s anonymised ruling is available under case No. A420282416 (archive No. AA43-0096-22/15).

With the labour market crossing national borders, Latvian employers are looking abroad to attract not only management talent but also routine workers. As the Covid-19 crisis lingers on and the significance of remote work grows, Latvian companies are increasingly wondering about the best ways to employ foreign workers, especially if they work remotely from their home country.

Entering into contracts for services is an inevitable part of business, but this cannot be undertaken without fully assessing inherent risks. Over the years the courts have developed sufficient case law allowing us to make conclusions about how they approach situations that involve assessing the nature of a legal relationship to determine whether the contract is one for services or one of employment. This article explores some of the case law that prescribes the conduct of parties entering into either type of contract.