<p>After the publication of the article entitled ‘‘Uberisation in the world of clairvoyance: Kang in the crosshairs’’ available at the following link: <a href="https://inad.info/blog/juridique/871-uberisation-dans-le-monde-de-la-">https://inad.info/blog/juridique/871-uberisation-dans-le-monde-de-la-</a>, we received a right of reply from the KANG company which we publish below. After contacting Mr. NOHAM, clairvoyant, he confirms the other information provided to INAD and informs us that an error slipped into the body of his interview, because he confused URSSAF and FISC… According to a judgment rendered on April 13, 2023, it appears that the Kang company was indeed the subject of a tax audit, which took place from April 13, 2013 to December 31, 2015.</p>
<p>KANG’S RIGHT OF RESPONSE</p>
<p>We have taken note of the article that you published on the INAD website dated June 27, 2023 entitled “Uberization in the world of clairvoyance: KANG in the crosshairs.” You allege that INAD “has been concerned for years to maintain professional relationships excluding any fraud and manipulation” but that INAD’s interventions would have remained in vain. We draw your attention to the fact that the company KANG is particularly appreciated by many service providers and users, ensuring respect for users, the quality of services and respect for ethics. The KANG company fights against scams and intends to ensure that the advice deployed by service providers is communicated in accordance with legislative provisions. You allege that the KANG company would be summoned before the Industrial Court, which the KANG company has not been aware of to date.</p>
<p>You mention the status of the service providers and in particular of a man named Noham who would be treated as an “employee subject to numerous constraints without benefiting from the advantages linked to his position and in a state of great precariousness”. The KANG company strives to maintain quality contractual relationships with the service providers, its primary concern being that both the service provider and the user are satisfied, not imposing any rules but recommending useful advice.
She has never dealt with nor implemented pressure on service providers who could assimilate them to employees. Secondly, you allege that the company KANG would have been singled out by Urssaf for not having paid VAT.</p>
<p>VAT is a tax problem and has no link with an Urssaf control. The KANG company, which is fully up to date with its obligations towards its own employees, has only suffered from minimal Urssaf control (€500 in fees to be paid) and has never passed on, as INAD writes, this so-called control by lowering the amounts collected by service providers. On the contrary, KANG is known for paying back more than other platforms, which ensures the success and satisfaction of the Masters.</p>
<p>We inform you that the KANG company always pays 50% excluding tax of the amount excluding tax received by the user, for the benefit of the service provider.</p>
<p>The KANG company absolutely does not infringe the law in force any more than the service providers are employees.</p>
<p>All service providers are delighted to deploy services in partnership with KANG and can attest to this.</p>
<p>KANG
N.GRUMBACH</p>
A word to the readers
Comments
0 comments
Be the first person to respond.
Share your point of view in a respectful and constructive spirit.
Share your point of view in a respectful and constructive spirit.