Usual salary for founders: this is how the usual salary scheme for startups and scale-ups works

Why this scheme is so relevant for startups

The usual salary scheme is intended for situations where someone works for a company or other body in which they themselves, or their partner, have a significant interest. The idea behind this is simple: those who can set their own employment conditions can otherwise keep the salary artificially low and extract the value from the company in a different way. This is extra relevant for founders and management teams in tech companies, because that's where runway, reinvestment and equity are often driven instead of cash.

That low salary is not fiscally neutral. The scheme was introduced precisely to prevent work from shifting too much from salary to income from the interest in the company, and to prevent underincome earners from also continuing to work in other regulations that relate to fiscal wages and aggregate income. For startups, this means that a low cash position does not automatically mean complete freedom to set the founder salary to zero or almost zero.

When the usual salary scheme applies

The scheme essentially applies to someone who works for a body in which they have a significant interest, whether or not together with their partner. That significant interest can exist directly or indirectly, and can also run through stocks, options, profit certificates or a cooperative membership. The location of the body is also not decisive. A foreign entity is therefore not automatically out of the picture.

For many founders, it is particularly important that the scheme does not only look at the classic image of the day employed by his own, for example. If no real employment relationship exists, the employment relationship can still be treated as fictitious employment. Management structures therefore do not solve this by themselves either. The decisive factor remains whether work is actually done for the body. In addition, the burden of proof that such work is in principle on the inspector.

In practice, this is an important point. Founders sometimes think that no employment contract, no paycheck or a limited formal role is sufficient to stay out of the scheme. It's not that simple. At the same time, the opposite also applies: if it cannot be sufficiently substantiated that work has actually been carried out, the application of the scheme is not obvious.

How the usual salary is determined

The three benchmarks

The usual salary is determined on the basis of the maximum of three amounts. This concerns the salary from the most comparable employment relationship, the highest salary of other employees within the body or associated bodies, and the statutory standard amount. For 2026, that standard amount is €58,000. That standard amount is therefore not a standard wage for every founder, but it is an important lower limit as long as it is not made plausible that another amount is more appropriate.

This most comparable employment relationship has been the central point of comparison since 2015. This does not have to be an identical function with a name and a nickname. This is the employment relationship that is most comparable in terms of activities, industry, responsibilities, experience and context, while significant importance does not play a role there. For tech companies, that's often exactly where the discussion starts: a founder CEO of a young SaaS company isn't just like a director of an adult corporation or an international concern.

The latter is relevant for startups, because the comparison measure must be sufficiently in line with the reality of the company. The size of the company, the phase in which it is and the nature of the activities count. A small, just starting company cannot therefore simply be compared to the yardstick of a much larger market player.

A lower salary is possible, but you have to make it plausible

The scheme does not preclude a lower usual salary than the standard amount. But then it must be made plausible that the salary from the most comparable employment relationship is lower. This therefore requires substantiation, for example from job content, industry, time spent and responsibilities. Without this substantiation, the standard amount remains visible, or even a higher amount may be relevant if there are better-paid employees around the group.

For founders, this is often the difference between a defensible low wage and a tax correction afterwards. A feeling that the salary “doesn't feel appropriate yet” is not enough. The scheme does not work on the basis of sympathy for the start-up phase, but on the basis of objective leads.

Parttime, limited work and the €5,000 limit

Part-time also does not automatically lead to a lower usual salary. Only if it can be made plausible that the salary for the most comparable employment, taking into account the size of the work, is lower, can this lead to a lower outcome. This is therefore essentially different from simply adding a part-time factor to the standard amount.

However, there is a practical lower limit. If the usual salary would not be higher than €5,000, the scheme does not have to be applied. This exception is relevant for very limited activities, but that is why it is also risky: you must then be able to explain and substantiate that the activities are really of that limited scope.

A startup is losing money, can the salary be reduced?

This is probably the most frequently asked question. The short answer is: not automatic. A one-off loss year, a start-up loss or the simple fact that all available cash is being put into growth is not in itself a sufficient reason to lower the usual wage. The scheme is based on the idea that a day should also trade business with its own company.

Only in a structural loss situation can there be room for moderation, especially if payment of the previously determined salary would jeopardize the continuity of the company. But even then, that is not a license. It follows from the line in the text and case law that it is necessary to properly substantiate why there is a sustainable poor financial situation and why a lower salary is necessary. Simply pointing out investment needs, illness or general tightness is usually not enough.

For startups and scale-ups, this means that you need to have the financial substantiation in order. Those who defend a lower wage should be able to show why that is business in this specific situation. Think of consistent figures, insight into liquidity and continuity, and a story that matches the actual development of the company. Without that file, you run the risk that the standard amount, or another higher amount, will be applied afterwards.

Pay extra attention to holdings, management structures and group relationships

Many tech companies work with a holding company over an operating company. This is often legally and fiscally logical, but it does not make the usual salary scheme any less relevant. In the event of a coincidence with continued pay, the scheme is essentially applied at the level of the main employer as if all work was performed for that main employer. The paid salary within the group can also be an important lower limit.

This is particularly important in structures where management fees run between group companies. In such cases, the tax authorities not only look at the label on the invoice or the management agreement, but at the work that is actually performed within the group and the appropriate remuneration. For scale-ups with multiple companies, international structures or a central holding company, this is a point you'd rather set up properly beforehand than have to repair afterwards.

The old startup easing no longer exists

Some founders are still walking around with the idea that an innovative startup can set the usual wage at the minimum wage level. This arrangement did exist, but only for the period 2017 to 2022. Since 1 January 2023, this relaxation has expired, with transitional law only for companies that already made use of it in 2022 for the remainder of the three-year period.

This is an important practical point. This route is therefore no longer a current standard tool for new startups. Anyone who wants to defend a low founder salary today must do so within the normal system of the usual salary scheme.

What does this mean in concrete terms for startups and scale-ups?

At Startup-Recht, we regularly see that the conversation about founder salary is held too late. First, a low wage is agreed to save cash, then the company grows, an investor joins or an audit occurs, and only then is it examined whether that wage level was actually sustainable. Then you are often too late for a proper fiscal positioning.

A wise approach starts with three questions. Does the founder actually fall under the scheme? What comparable position is really appropriate for this company, at this stage and with these responsibilities? And is there a file that can actually bear a lower salary if you want to assume that?

This also includes attention to details. Consider whether there are better-paid employees within the group, whether a company car counts in the salary, whether there is continued payment between holding company and operating company, and whether any fictitious salary can still come into view at the end of the year. It is precisely these details that often make the difference between a workable structure and a correction afterwards.

Conclusion

For founders, the usual salary scheme is not a formality, but a harsh tax reality. Those who work for a company in which they have a significant interest cannot set their salary to a low level without obligation. The starting point is the higher of the comparable remuneration, the highest employee salary within the body or related bodies, and the standard amount of €58,000 in 2026, unless a lower amount can be conclusively substantiated.

For startups and scale-ups, the real profit therefore lies not in setting the salary as low as possible, but in properly substantiating what is defensible in the concrete situation in advance.

‍