No more looking in black and white

Not everyone who makes a mistake when filing tax returns is immediately a fraudster. Extra Business made it painfully clear. The Tax and Customs Administration trains its personnel so that they learn to approach concrete cases differently. The Home Office was allowed to participate.

Human size

The “new openness” of tax and customs administration takes some getting used to. The service wants to prevent another additional case. That’s why Jindra Kessener, senior Leadership & Culture adviser at the service, was asked to develop the “human dimension” course and this afternoon we sit at the table with nine people in a warm room in the De Knoop government office in Utrecht. In addition to Kessener and Ben Oldenhof, head of the “Individuals” department, a number of employees from the Amsterdam branch are also present. Everyone takes part in the discussion, including the journalist from the Ministry of the Interior. This, according to Kessener, gives me the best picture of the dynamics surrounding this issue.

Correct tick

With the “case dialogues”, the participants should become more aware of the “room available in the law”. What is proportional in the application of the law? What not? If someone doesn’t file a report for four years, do you issue a fine or is it better to have a conversation first? The topics of the dialogues vary. Strict deadlines and requirements and the “right tick” to tension with legal consequences. The relationship between the fine and the debt is also a subject.

Modernization

“You notice that modernization is necessary. The law becomes obsolete and can no longer always be applied as intended,” says Oldenhof. The aim is to examine this closely, for example not to always automatically impose a higher fine, because then the person will not be helped in their problems. “At the same time, we must also work in the interests of society: keep an eye out for fraud or bad intentions and fight them.”

GOOD

The tax and customs administration has “competent specialists” who advise on an “appropriate” fine. The first question is: do we want to impose a fine? “The key question then is: did you do something consciously or could you have known about it?” explains tax expert Vincent Meijerman. “You can only find out in a conversation with a taxpayer and then you have to believe it or not. It’s quite complicated.

Awareness

Greater employee awareness is important. You were obeying the law and you had done your job well. ‘A default penalty is immediately 369 euros. Is it appropriate? “says a participant. “No longer looking in black and white, but better considering the situation, which can lead to personalization. We have to fill this differently. We must first realize the impact of a fine. And you also realize what your task is: to determine a tax debt.

Personalization

Fine is sentencing and sentencing is tailor-made, Meijerman adds. This does not mean that fines can no longer be imposed if the behavior can be sanctioned, explains Sandra Palmen, who was also present. In 2017, she warned of serious flaws in the benefits system and recently became an assistant judge at the Central Appeals Board. Its task is also to propagate the rule of law among all officials.

Correction

“If the effect is unnecessarily or disproportionately adverse, a correction of the measurement may be appropriate,” says Palmen. Oldenhof states that the purpose of a fine is retaliation and behavior change. “But is the imposition of the fine proportionate and does it help?” According to Kessener, the question is: does the citizen understand what he must do and does he know that there are consequences?

We must realize that things are less likely to go wrong than we think.

Vincent Meijerman, tax expert at the Tax and Customs Administration

moral compass

“Solving the framework limitation shouldn’t lead to new frameworks,” says Oldenhof. ‘It’s dynamic. This is how you form a shared moral compass. This is one of the purposes of case dialogues. According to Meijerman, the employees wanted tools to apply the law and so they can practice. ‘Tell us why you treated a law differently and share it as best practices: how did we come to this conclusion? It’s about the how instead of the what. So there are tools to objectify subjectivity. “You discuss among yourselves how well a rule works and you come to a common sense of rhythm.”

Crying officials

Kessener adds that in recent years we have worked hard on unity in policy and implementation, so that the inhabitants of Groningen are treated in the same way as the inhabitants of Maastricht. At the same time, the tax and customs administration wants to keep an eye on individual facts and circumstances. This space seemed a bit lost. Civil servants work in this tension, which brings with it dilemmas and uneasiness. A perspective of action is therefore necessary. The concept of what an implementing organization is allowed to do has changed in the meantime. When there was more room for the human dimension, it evoked a lot of different emotions. Kessener received both weeping officials (“Now it’s finally allowed”) and officials who had long occupied that space.

Bedroom

According to Meijerman, it is important to maintain the balance between democracy and the rule of law. ‘It’s never taken for granted. Look at the judges who rule in the Urgenda or Nitrogen cases. If the tax and customs administration is also given a greater role in this regard, we must include employees in this. And then it must also sound familiar to you when a colleague says: you are wrong. This freedom must be there. And this atmosphere of disagreement is welcome, adds Oldenhof. Meijerman: “We have to realize that things are less likely to go wrong than we think. There is room.

Read how the dialogue on the case unfolded in this week’s Home Affairs Issue 7.