Agefi Luxembourg - mars 2026

Mars 2026 35 AGEFI Luxembourg Emploi / Formations By Julien LAMOTTE, Partner &ChristelleWACK, Director, Deloitte Tax &Consulting S.à r.l I n our first article, we explored the tax and social security implica- tions of teleworking (or homewor- king) in Luxembourg, highlighting how personal income tax, cor- porate tax and social security rules apply in a cross-border context. However, understan- ding the general framework is only part of the picture. In practice, implementing teleworking arrangements raises a number of opera- tional and organizational challenges for both employers and employees. These include tracking working days, managing different thresh- olds, defining internal teleworking policies and en- suring compliance while respecting the limits imposedbydata protection rules. This second article focuses on the practical aspects of teleworking, examining the key operational chal- lengesemployersfacewhendesigningandmanaging teleworking andmobilitypolicies inLuxembourg. Tracking andmonitoringworking days Inpractice,itisparticularlyimportantfornon-resident employees to keep track of where they performtheir work. Employers typically need to distinguish be- tween days worked in Luxembourg, teleworking days from the employee’s country of residence, and daysspentonbusinesstravelabroad.Maintainingac- curaterecordshelpsemployersandemployeesmon- itor applicable limits and adjust the Luxembourg payroll where needed to reflect that remuneration linkedtodaysworkedoutsideLuxembourgmaybe- come taxable in the employee’s country of residence once the relevant thresholds are exceeded. Even though the rules around teleworking have be- comemoredetailedovertime,puttingthemintoprac- tice can still be challenging. Teleworking may affect both social security and tax reporting, and each area may relyondifferent thresholds.Managing these as- pects together therefore requires clear processes and effective coordination. Anotherchallengeisthatworkingdaysarenotalways countedinthesameway.Forsocialsecuritypurposes, theassessmentmaybebasedonworkingtime.Where appropriate systems are in place, this can involve tracking hours worked, for example through timesheets. In practice, however, many employers apply a simpler day-based approach, calculating the number of working days in a year after excluding weekends, public holidays and annual leave. While this approach is commonlyused, theEUcoor- dinationrulesdonotprescribeaspecificmethodology forcalculatingthe25%threshold.Article14(8)ofReg- ulation(EC)No987/2009referstoworkingtimeorre- munerationastherelevantcriteria,leavinginstitutions toassesstheemployee’ssituationonthebasisofthese indicators. What matters is that the methodology adopted is reasonable, applied consistently and re- flectstherealityoftheemployee’sactivity.Fromatax perspective, the rules may differ depending on the employee’s country of tax residency. In some coun- tries, even a brief physical present during a daymay besufficientforthatdaytobetreatedasafullworking day for tax purposes. InGermany, for example, even a brief presencemay result in the day being counted as aGermanworkingday. Differencesmayalsoarisebetweentheinterpretation adopted by the employee’s state of residence and that applied inLuxembourg. This isnotably the case in Belgium, where the Belgian tax authorities have developed their own administrative practice (“ doc- trine belge ”) regarding the applicationof theprotocol on the 34-day teleworking threshold. This practice may result in a different method for counting tele- working days compared to the approach followed in Luxembourg, adding an additional layer of com- plexity for employers and employees when moni- toring compliance. Finally, tracking teleworkingalso raisesdataprotec- tion and privacy concerns. Employers are generally limited in their ability tomonitor employees’ physi- cal location through ITsystems or technical tools.As a result, they often need to rely on employee self-re- porting,supportedbyclearinternalrulesandappro- priate documentation. Designing andmanaging teleworking policies in a cross-border context Having a clear teleworkingpolicy is essential for em- ployers. Such a policy helps set expectations by ex- plainingwhomay telework, under what conditions, how requests are approved, how teleworking days shouldbetracked,andwhatisexpectedfromboththe employerandtheemployee.Clearinternalrulesmake teleworkingeasiertomanage,reducemisunderstand- ings andhelp limit compliance risks. InLuxembourg, however, implementing such a pol- icyisnotalwaysstraightforward.Differentrulesapply depending on whether employees are residents or cross-borderworkers.Asaresult,employeesperform- ing similar roles may not always be able to telework tothesameextentsimplybecausetheyliveindifferent countries.Thissituationisfurthercomplicatedbythe structure of the Luxembourg labormarket, where a large share of theworkforce lives in neighboring countries. Because of the combined impact of tax and social secu- rity rules, Luxembourgemployersoften face more constraints than employers basedinneighboringstates.Forexam- ple,aFrenchorBelgianresidentwork- ing for an employer established in their country canoften teleworka large part of their time with rela- tively few administrative hur- dles. By contrast, teleworking is usually more limited and more complex for cross-border work- ers employed by a Luxembourg employer. Inpractice, employers oftenhave to make difficult choices. Some decide to apply the same, more restrictive teleworking rules to allemployeesintheorganization.Whilethisapproach can simplify management, it may frustrate resident employees, even though teleworking is not a legal right. Others choose to applydifferent rules depend- ing on where employees live. While this may better reflecttheapplicableconstraints,itcanraisequestions around fairness, consistency and communication within the organization. In addition, teleworking practices may also differ depending on the em- ployee’s role. For example, employeesholdingsenior or strategic positions may face stricter limitations on teleworkingduetothenatureoftheirresponsibilities. Other compliance considerations From an employment law perspective, a distinction is commonly made between regular and occasional telework, oftenbasedonaquantitative threshold (for example, above or below10%ofworking time). This distinction stems from the interprofessional agree- mentonteleworkof20October2020,declaredgener- ally binding by the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 22 January 2021. Where telework qualifies as regular, employers are generally required to cover costs in- curred by the employee, for instance through a flat- rate telework allowance or the reimbursement of actualexpenses.Sucharrangementsmaybeprovided for in collective agreements, such as the collective agreement applicable in the banking sector. It should also be noted that these arrangements may require consideration from a permanent establishment per- spectiveincertainjurisdictions,dependingonthespe- cific circumstances. Teleworkingmay also raise posting andnotification obligations in certain countries. While teleworking from an employee’s home is not generally consid- eredaposting in the traditional sense, some jurisdic- tions—such as Belgium— apply notification requirements (for example, LIMOSA declarations) broadly to activities performedon their territory, in- cluding in certain teleworking situations. Whether such obligations apply depends on the nature, du- rationandregularityoftheactivity,aswellasonlocal administrativepractice. Employers should therefore remain attentive to potential foreign notification re- quirementswhen implementingor extendingcross- border teleworking arrangements. Outlook: Towardsmore pragmatic solutions? The continuedgrowth of teleworking and cross-bor- der mobility has highlighted the limits of the current framework. As working practices evolve, there is in- creasing discussion around the introduction of safe- harbor mechanisms allowing a limited amount of regular teleworking without triggering tax or social security consequences. One approach often mentioned in this context is the possibility of introducing a standard safe-harbor al- lowance, for example equivalent toup to twodays of teleworkingperweek. Such an approachwouldbet- ter reflect modernworking practices, reduce admin- istrative complexity and provide greater clarity for both employers and employees. These discussions are also taking place at political level. In a parliamentary question answered in Janu- ary2026(no.3216),theLuxembourggovernmentwas notably asked about its position on the objective pro- posed by France to allow up to 40% teleworking for cross-border workers. In its response, the Luxem- bourg government indicated that it was open to in- creasing the teleworking threshold for cross-border workers up to 25%, provided this is accompaniedby enhanced cross-border cooperation and co-develop- ment initiatives as a counterpart. Although no harmonized framework exists at this stage,thesedevelopmentssuggestagradualmoveto- wards solutions that are better alignedwithmodern workingpractices. Conclusion Teleworkinghasbecomeanormalandlastingpartof working life in Luxembourg, particularly in a cross- border environment. However, the rules that apply today remaincomplex,withdifferent thresholds and requirementsdependingonwhetheronelooksatper- sonal income tax, social security or employment law, and with different treatments for resident and non- resident employees. Although some clarifications havebeenintroducedinrecentyears,managingthese different rules in parallel can still be challenging in practice, especially in Luxembourg given the high proportionof cross-borderworkers and the resulting constraints on teleworking arrangements. Atthesametime,someemployersareincreasinglyof- fering “working from elsewhere” options, allowing employeestoworktemporarilyfromanothercountry, often their countryof residence.While these arrange- ments respond to employee expectations and reflect the international nature of the Luxembourg work- force, they also require careful consideration from a tax, social security and compliance perspective. Looking ahead, the continued development of tele- working and cross-bordermobilitymay lead to sim- pler and more coordinated approaches, such as allowing a limited amount of regular teleworking without triggering additional obligations. Until then, Luxembourgemployersshouldcontinuetoapproach teleworking arrangements carefully and remain attentive tohowthe rules evolve over time. Teleworking in Luxembourg: Practical challenges and operational considerations L aChambre desMétiers a pu- blié sa nouvelle note de conjoncture consacrée à la si- tuation économique de l’Artisanat auquatrième trimestre 2025. Si cer- tains indicateurs suggèrent une améliorationprogressive, la reprise reste fragile dans un environne- mentmarqué par des incertitudes économiques et géopolitiques. Au quatrième trimestre 2025, l’indicateur global d’activité demeure en territoire négatif, à –8,2 points. La part des entre- prises déclarant une amélioration de leur activité(11,4%)serapprochetoutefoispro- gressivement de celles rapportant une dégradation (19,6 %), laissant penser que le creux conjoncturel pourrait avoir été atteint. La Chambre des Métiers reste néanmoins prudente et souligne le carac- tère encore précaire de cette stabilisation. Le secteur de la construction continue d’illustrer ces difficultés. Les ventes en état futur d’achèvement (VEFA) restent particulièrement faibles.Au troisième tri- mestre 2025, seulement 324 transactions ont été enregistrées, soit près de lamoitié de la moyenne observée avant la crise, qui s’élevait à 691 ventes trimestrielles. Lesmesures fiscalesmises enplace n’ont pas permis de recréer une dynamique durable, et la confiance dans ce modèle reste limitée. Le marché de l’emploi reflète également cettefragilité.Auquatrièmetrimestre2025, le taux de chômage a progressé de 0,3 point, soit une hausse de 12,6%du nom- bre de demandeurs d’emploi. Le secteur de la construction est le plus touché, avec près de 40 % de demandeurs d’emploi supplémentaires en un trimestre et une baissede2%del’emploisalariésurunan. Parallèlement, un déséquilibre structurel se creuse entre secteur marchand et sec- teur public. Alors que l’emploi privé stagne, l’emploi dans le secteur public a progresséde 24%encinqans, accentuant les tensions de recrutement dans les sec- teurs productifs. À ces difficultés conjoncturelles s’ajoute undéfidémographique important. Entre 24 000 et 28 000 salariés de l’Artisanat devraient partir à la retraite au cours des dix prochaines années. Dans la construc- tion,leratiojeunes/seniorsaétédivisépar quatre depuis 2009, ce qui menace la transmission des savoir-faire et les capa- cités de production. Face à ces défis, la Chambre des Métiers identifie trois priorités : « productivité », « logement » et « talents ». La producti- vité constitue un enjeu central, alors que celle de l’économie marchande a reculé de 2,5 % entre 2003 et 2023. Dans la construction, la baisse observée s’expliquenotamment par undéficit tem- poraire de la demande, les entreprises ayantchoisidepréserverleurmain-d’œu- vremalgré la conjoncture. Pour améliorer durablement les perfor- mances du secteur, l’institution souligne l’importancedeleviersstructurelstelsque lasimplificationadministrative,l’investis- sement dans l’innovation et la moderni- sationdes infrastructures. Dans ce contexte, l’intelligence artificielle est perçue comme un outil complémen- taire permettant d’améliorer l’efficacité et l’organisation du travail, sans remplacer les savoir-faire artisanaux. Lelogementconstitueégalementunenjeu déterminant. Le marché des logements neufs reste marqué par un niveau de ventesenVEFAnettementinférieuràcelui d’avantcrise.Parailleurs,lamiseenœuvre du programme public d’acquisition pro- gresse plus lentement qu’anticipé, tandis que les partenariats public-privé peinent encore à se concrétiser. SelonlaChambredesMétiers,unerelance crédible dumarché immobilier passe à la foispar la restaurationde la confiancedes ménages—parexempleviaunprêtàtaux zéromodulé—et paruncadrefiscal plus incitatif pour soutenir l’investissement. Enfin,l’attractiondestalentsconstitueune priorité transversale. Le remplacement d’environ un quart des salariés de l’Artisanat d’ici dix ans nécessiteune stra- tégie cohérente combinant formation, mobilité et attractivité internationale. La création de nouvelles qualifications « 1 er DAP » d’une durée d’un an, prévues à partir de la rentrée 2026, vise notamment à attirer davantage de jeunes vers les métiers de l’Artisanat. Pour la Chambre des Métiers, l’enjeu est de créer une dynamique dans laquelle productivité, compétences et attractivité serenforcentmutuellement,afindeconso- lider durablement la reprise du secteur. Informationscomplémentaires :https://urls.fr/vT3QKF Note de conjoncture de la Chambre des Métiers L’Artisanat luxembourgeois en clair-obscur 4*56"5*0/ &$0/0.*26& BV ÒNF USJNFTUSF 1 UBLIÉLE 6O TFDUFVS FO UFOTJPO QSPEVDUJWF VO BWFOJS EVSBCMF FO MJHOF EF NJSF M "SUJTBOBU FO DMBJS PCTDVS