Judgment of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (NSS) of 24 July 2026, case no. 5 Afs 40/2025-53 (full text on nssoud.cz).
An employer cannot turn part of an employee’s salary into a contract for work with “author’s fees” if the person keeps doing the same job. The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that such payments are employment income, taxed under § 6 of the Income Tax Act.
What happened
A private music conservatory in Opava shortened its employees’ working hours from September 2018 and cut their salaries accordingly. At the same time it signed contracts for work with them and started paying monthly “author’s fees”, supposedly for creating teaching materials, model documents and similar works. This applied to teachers and also to non-teaching staff.
After a tax audit, the tax office assessed additional wage tax for 2018 of CZK 579,334 above what the school had reported (total CZK 1,523,735). The Appeals Financial Directorate, the Regional Court in Ostrava and now the NSS all upheld the assessment.
Why the court found it was a wage
The court looked at what actually happened, not at the contracts. Key findings:
- The work did not change. Witnesses said they did the same tasks as before: preparing lessons, finding sheet music, administration, preparing students for concerts, meetings.
- The fees topped up the salary. They were paid every month, with no link to any delivered work, and their amount roughly restored the original pay.
- No author’s works were proven. The school submitted only repetitive lesson templates. The court said these would hardly meet the copyright definition of a unique creative work.
- Unrealistic working time. After the cut, the employment contracts left only a few hours a month for lesson preparation and other teaching-related work.
- Economic pressure. Many employees felt they had no real choice. The court added that even if only some felt pressured, it is still one indicator of dependent work.
The lesson for employers and freelancers
The NSS repeated a long-standing principle: for tax purposes, what counts is whether the work is genuinely done independently, not what the contract is called. Moving existing employees from employment to contracts for work or invoicing, while they keep doing the same core job, is a classic red flag.
The court also noted that some activities can be outsourced (for example running a library), but tasks that only a teacher can do and that are essential for teaching remain part of the employment.
This article is general information, not legal or tax advice for your specific situation.