Slovenisches Finanzministerium gab Richtlinien zu Mehrwertsteuer und Beschäftigungsregeln für Ride-Plattformen heraus.

In October 2025, the GetTransfer.com Legal Team submitted a set of regulatory questions to the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (FURS). The company sought clarification on how Slovenian legislation about digital ride-booking platforms.

I am writing on behalf of GetTransfer, a technology company registered in Cyprus, which is currently assessing the feasibility of launching a new platform-based service in Slovenia and some other EU countries under the working name “WelcomeRides”. Our primary objective is to ensure that the business model we intend to adopt will operate in full compliance with Slovenian tax and regulatory requirements.

Questions raised by GetTransfer Legal Team:
“We would like to request your guidance on the general application of Slovenian VAT and employment law to digital ride-booking platforms. This will allow us to better understand the regulatory framework and ensure that our operations are aligned with Irish and EU law.

Comparison of Business models

To illustrate our enquiry, we distinguish between two models currently used in the digital transport sector:

Platform-based model (similar to Uber Spain, “Active intermediary”):

– The passenger does not see the supplier’s identity before booking.

– The platform sets the fare and allocates drivers.

– The platform enters into the contract with the passenger and processes the payment.

In this case, the platform appears to provide the transport service itself and may be liable for VAT on the full fare and employment obligations.

Marketplace model (similar to TripAdvisor or “passive” intermediary):

– Several suppliers present offers under their own names with independent pricing.

– The passenger selects the supplier and contracts directly with them.

– The platform facilitates communication and payment only.

In this case, the platform acts as an information society service provider and is generally liable for VAT only on its commission, while drivers remain independent contractors.

We would be grateful if you could confirm whether this distinction reflects the current understanding of Slovenian tax and social security law, and whether operating under the first model would trigger full VAT and employment obligations.

VAT treatment

Under Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT Directive), where a taxable person acts in their own name but on behalf of another, they are deemed to receive and supply the underlying service themselves and must therefore account for VAT on the entire value of the service.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed this principle in several decisions:

• C-434/15 Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL (“Uber Spain”), where the Court ruled that platforms which set prices, control key aspects of service delivery, and contract directly with passengers must be regarded as transport service providers rather than intermediaries.
• C-320/16 Uber France SAS v Nabil Bensalem (“Uber France”), confirming the same logic in relation to licensing obligations.
• C-695/20 Fenix International, where the Court clarified that platforms exercising material control over pricing and customer interaction are liable for VAT on the full transaction value, not merely on their commission.

In practice, we observe that several platforms currently operating in the EU and in Slovenia set prices, allocate drivers, and process payments under their own brand. Based on publicly available information, these companies usually account for VAT only on their commission.

In this context, we would like to ask for clarification on whether, under Slovenian VAT law, a platform like Uber – if it sets fares, allocates drivers and contracts with passengers under its own name – would be required to account for VAT on the full passenger fare, or whether VAT liability would extend only to the commission fee retained by the platform?

Employment status and social security

We are also aware of the Proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work (COM/2021/762 final), which introduces a presumption of employment where the platform exercises significant control over workers.

Please advise us on how Slovenian law, similar to EU law, looks to the substance of the relationship rather than its contractual label. Accordingly, if a platform (acting as an “active” intermediary) determines fares, allocates rides, and sets essential service conditions, drivers may be treated as employees for social security purposes, even if they are formally described as self-employed.

We would therefore appreciate clarification on the following points:

1. Would Slovenian authorities generally regard drivers engaged under such a model as employees, requiring the platform to contribute to social security?
2. Alternatively, is it possible to treat drivers as self-employed provided they maintain independence (such as the ability to work for several platforms and absence of fixed working hours), even where the platform sets pricing and allocates trips?

Finally, we would also like to ask whether in Slovenia there are procedures available (such as binding or non-binding rulings) through which we could obtain official confirmation before launching operations.“

We received and official explanation:
“MINISTRY OF FINANCE
 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
 FINANCIAL OFFICE MARIBOR

Number: 0920-18023/2025-2
Date: 27 November 2025

Subject: Intermediation in the provision of transport services and VAT

We have received your question, in which you state that the company GetTransfer, registered in Cyprus, is examining the possibility of introducing a new “WelcomeRides” service in Slovenia. For this purpose, it needs an understanding of the Slovenian tax and regulatory framework. The text presents two operating models for ride-booking platforms:

1. Platform Model (active intermediary):

• The platform hides the supplier’s identity before booking
  
• The platform sets prices and assigns drivers
  
• The platform concludes contracts with passengers and processes payments
  Consequence: the platform likely pays VAT on the full price and has employment-law obligations.
  

2. Marketplace Model (passive intermediary):

• Providers operate under their own name and set their own prices
  
• Passengers conclude contracts directly with providers
  
• The platform only enables communication and the payment system
  Consequence: the platform pays VAT only on the commission; drivers remain independent contractors.

The company seeks confirmation that this distinction corresponds to Slovenian tax legislation.

At the outset, we explain that, under Article 13 of the Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2), the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (FURS) provides the right to information for taxpayers. Based on this article, FURS provides taxpayers with general information, and more detailed explanations or interpretations of specific provisions only if the taxpayer presents concrete information relevant for preparing such a clarification. Under Article 13, FURS may not provide tax treatment of an individual transaction where facts and circumstances of the specific case would need to be established. Therefore, FURS cannot take a position on the taxpayer’s statements regarding specific cases; it may only decide on such matters based on all established facts and circumstances in a tax-audit procedure. Accordingly, our reply below is of a general nature.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC distinguishes between two concepts: the “disclosed agent” (acting in the name and on behalf of another) and “undisclosed agent” (acting in their own name but on behalf of another). When a taxable person acts in their own name but on behalf of another in the supply of goods or services, they are deemed to have received and supplied those goods or services themselves (Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of the Directive).

The Slovenian VAT Act (ZDDV-1), in Article 16, provides that when a taxable person acts in their own name and on behalf of another person in the provision of services, they are deemed to receive and supply those services themselves. This creates a legal fiction that two identical services are performed consecutively. According to this fiction, the intermediary (commission agent) is deemed to first receive the services from the principal and then supply them to the customer. Thus, the roles of service provider and payer are fictitiously reversed for VAT purposes (CJEU case C-464/10, paragraphs 34–35).

Regarding Model 1 (active intermediary), you state that before booking, the passenger does not see the supplier’s identity, the intermediary (platform) sets the ticket price, assigns drivers, concludes the contract with the passenger and processes payment. In this case, we understand that the intermediary acts in its own name on behalf of another. Under Slovenian ZDDV-1, the intermediary is deemed to perform the transport service and is liable to charge VAT on the entire transport service.

Unter Model 2 (passive intermediary), multiple providers present their offers under their own name with independently set prices; the passenger chooses a provider and enters into a direct contract with them; the intermediary (platform) only enables communication and payment. In this case, we understand that the intermediary acts in the name and on behalf of another, and under Slovenian ZDDV-1 is required to pay VAT only on the intermediation commission.

The Personal Income Tax Act (ZDoh-2), which governs the taxation of income of individuals, sets rules for defining income from dependent relationships (employment income) and independent relationships (business income). Under Article 35, “employment” includes any dependent contractual relationship in which an individual performs physical or intellectual work, including services or copyrighted work, regardless of duration. A dependent relationship is any contractual relationship where the nature of control, instructions, method of performing work or services, remuneration, provision of resources and conditions for work, and other rights and responsibilities indicate a dependent relationship.

Income from independent activity under Article 46 is income earned through independent, self-employed activity, regardless of purpose or outcome. The criteria for determining whether income is treated as employment income or business income depend on whether the individual acts in a dependent or independent relationship when performing the work or services.

These criteria include, for example:

• control and instructions regarding work or services,
• personal performance of the work or services,
• provision of resources and conditions for performing the work or services,
• assumption of financial and other risks and responsibilities related to the work,
• method of performing work or services and method of payment,
• right to withdraw from the contract and related responsibilities,
• direct participation in profit or loss arising from the work or services.
  

These criteria must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the principle from Article 5(2) of ZDavP-2, under which tax subjects and circumstances are evaluated according to their economic substance. Therefore, registration as a self-employed person is not decisive and does not automatically mean that all income formally earned under this status is treated as business income. Income may be considered business income only if the legal relationship between the contractor and the client does not contain elements of a dependent relationship.

Prepared by:
 Mija Thaler, Senior Tax Consultant
 Tatjana Hajšek Sodin, Head of Department

This explanation is prepared under Article 13(1) of ZDavP-2 based on the information you provided. FURS provides only general information regarding implementation of tax regulations and tax calculation/payment procedures; it does not constitute advice regarding the tax treatment of any specific transaction.

Actual circumstances are assessed only in a tax procedure conducted by the competent first-instance authority or in a tax audit, based on all available facts and evidence. Due to the variability of real-world situations, this explanation may only be applied to your specific case.

This clarification from the Ministry of Finance of Slovenia provides important guidance for any digital ride-booking platform assessing local tax and regulatory obligations. As GetTransfer.com continues exploring the feasibility of launching its WelcomeRides service as active intermediary, the distinction between acting in one’s own name or as an intermediary remains central for proper VAT and employment classification. For companies developing booking solutions in the transport sector, understanding how Slovenian tax authorities interpret platform roles is essential for designing compliant operations and anticipating potential liabilities under Slovenian tax law.