Jugement Kantonsgericht (VD - 2020/208)

Canton:	VD
Case number:	2020/208

Instance:	Kantonsgericht
Department:	Sozialversicherungsgericht

Kantonsgericht Entscheid 2020/208 vom 02.04.2020 (VD)

Date:	02.04.2020
Force of law:	-

Summary:	In five movements: One insured person was a shareholder and managing director of an AG from April 22 to May 13, 2014. On January 15, 2015, he was hired by the same AG as an employee. The IV office rejected the insured person's claim to IV benefits, as he had worked as a self-employed person in the months of April to May 2014. The insurance court accepted the insured person's complaint and awarded him IV benefits. It stated that the activity as a managing director of an AG should not be qualified as an independent gainful activity. More detailed summary: From April 22 to May 13, 2014, the insured person was a shareholder and managing director of an AG. On January 15, 2015, he was hired by the same AG as an employee. The IV office rejected the insured person's claim to IV benefits, as he had worked as a self-employed person in the months of April to May 2014. This should be qualified as a shareholder and managing director of the AG on the basis of his entry in the commercial register. The insured, on the other hand, filed a complaint with the insurance court. He argued that his activity as managing director of an AG should not be qualified as an independent gainful activity. Rather, he had been working as an employee, since he had been subject to the authority of the AG to issue instructions. The insurance court accepted the insured person's complaint and awarded him IV benefits. It stated that the activity as a managing director of an AG should not be qualified as an independent gainful activity. Rather, the insured person had been working as an employee, since he had been subject to the authority of the client to issue instructions. The judgment is relevant because it clarifies that the activity as a managing director of an AG does not automatically qualify as an independent gainful activity. Rather, it is necessary to check in each individual case whether the managing Director is subject to the Client's authority to issue instructions.
Rule of Law:	Art. 100 LTF;Art. 56 LP;Art. 60 LP;
BGE reference::	-
Comment:	-

Please note that there is no claim to topicality/accuracy/format and/or completeness and that therefore any guarantee is excluded. Original decisions may be ordered or made on the basis of the competent court.

Click here to return to the page search engine.