Securify in Amsterdam hired a Greek professional whose Expat Scheme application initially appeared unlikely to succeed.
He had previously worked for a Belgian employer and was officially registered in Belgium, within 150 kilometres of the Dutch border. Based on that registration, his application was initially rejected.
However, his registered address did not reflect where he actually lived.
At a glance
Challenge
The employee’s Expat Scheme application was initially rejected because his official registration in Belgium placed him within 150 kilometres of the Dutch border.
Approach
Talcom reconstructed two years of actual residence using rental payments, utility bills, travel records, remote-working evidence and wider personal circumstances.
Results
The initial rejection was reconsidered and the employee ultimately received the Expat Scheme.
The challenge
Looking beyond the official registration
The employee performed a substantial part of his work remotely from Greece and maintained his home there. He continued paying rent and household expenses in Greece, while travelling between Greece and Belgium.
This created a much more complex question than simply checking his registered address:
Where was his actual and durable place of residence before starting his employment with Securify in Amsterdam?
Talcom decided to challenge the initial assessment rather than accept the registration in Belgium as the complete picture.
Our approach
Reconstructing two years of actual residence
We conducted a detailed review of his living and travel history and built an evidence based case demonstrating where he actually spent his time and maintained his home.
The supporting evidence included:
- Rental payments for his home in Greece
- Internet bills in Greece
- Gas, water and electricity bills
- Flight tickets and travel records
- Evidence of his physical presence in Greece and Belgium
- Documentation relating to his Masters degree
- An explanation of his remote working arrangements
- A detailed reconstruction of his residence during the relevant period
His Masters degree required additional analysis as well. Although obtained through a university in England, the programme had been completed remotely and therefore did not demonstrate physical residence in the United Kingdom.
Most importantly, the travel evidence demonstrated that his Belgian registration did not correspond with where he actually spent his time.
We could show that he had spent fewer than 180 days per year in Belgium and, during the final two years, less than eight months there in total.
Challenging the initial rejection
Based on this evidence, Talcom prepared and submitted a detailed response challenging the initial assessment.
The argument was not that the Belgian registration was incorrect. Instead, we demonstrated that registration alone did not accurately establish his durable place of residence.
That distinction was essential.
By combining travel records, housing evidence, utility bills, remote working arrangements and his wider personal circumstances, we were able to demonstrate that his actual and durable residence was in Greece.
The result
The initial rejection was reconsidered.
The evidence and arguments were accepted and the employee ultimately received the Expat Scheme.
What initially looked like a straightforward rejection based on a Belgian registration became a successful application after a detailed reconstruction of where the employee actually lived.
Why it matters
Complex international working arrangements do not always fit neatly into administrative records.
An employee can be registered in one country, employed by a company in another and perform much of their work from somewhere else.
In those situations, accepting the first answer can mean missing the underlying facts.
Talcom invests the time required to understand the complete situation, reconstruct the evidence and pursue a case when there is a sound basis for doing so.
For Securify and its employee, that meant turning an initial rejection into an approved Expat Scheme application.
.jpeg)
