No TVL either: even more small print

Eduard Schaepman
5 Feb 2021

No TVL either: even more small print

by Eduard Schaepman, on 5 Feb 2021

Do you remember the open letter I sent to the ministries asking for a review of the NOW regulation? Not entirely unexpectedly, we have had no response yet, but we are facing yet more obstacles. So well, we sent another one. There must be someone among the Ministers Wiebes, Keizer and Ongering of Economic Affairs & Climate Change, Ministers Koolmees, Van 't Wout and Mulder of Social Affairs & Employment, Minister Hoekstra of Finance, and all the Members of the Lower House of the Economic Affairs & Climate Change and Social Affairs & Employment Committees, who has the decency to send a reply after two letters. Even if it is only a 'we have received your letter' response. The press has been covering it, now we need our government...


Anyway, it also turns out to be impossible to qualify for the compensation of standing charges (TVL). And just imagine it. You have just had the disappointment of not getting NOW, accepted it and soon you find the TVL scheme. You're relieved, because the TVL scheme 'is aimed at companies that have lost at least 30% of their turnover due to the corona crisis'.


The main conditions are clear:

  1. With 30% turnover loss compared to the same quarter of the previous year.
  2. Your company had not applied for a moratorium with the court by 31 December 2019 or later.
  3. Your company was not bankrupt on 31 December 2019 or after.

TRIBES meets these conditions as well as the correct SBI codes.


And as with the NOW application, the cat's out of the bag only when the application is actually made. For the TVL, too, there are more conditions than are communicated. It suddenly emerges that the company may not have cumulative losses that exceed the issued share capital. This is of course difficult for any start-ups/scale ups (such as TRIBES) because many entities were healthy and making a profit at the beginning of this crisis, but were these entities/companies not old enough to compensate for the start-up losses and therefore not allowed to qualify for this subsidy?


At Tribes, there are entities/branches that have more than 30% turnover loss and had a positive cash flow at the time of the measurement moment (Q4 2019) and were just able to keep themselves alive, in fact to generate nice profits. But because these entities were still in the process of making up start-up losses, we are again left out.


There is simply a need for more customisation. As became clear at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the scale-ups are again the sector that is ignored when it comes to concrete custom-made solutions. Despite the fact that this sector is an important engine for the Dutch economy.


The result is once again a lot of redundancies at many companies: employees who find themselves without a job and then end up at the UWV and receive money from the government. Whether we do it the one way or the other way: it will cost money. So, I really don't understand why the choice is not made to retain companies and therefore jobs. If someone could explain that to me? Preferably without any small print...

Topics:Eduard Schaepman