Horror scenario: the benefits scandal loomed when I needed the Tax Phone.

Antonie KerstholtEconomist and lawyer

By chance, I recently discovered that the tax authorities still have traits that caused a lot of trouble for victims and professional care workers in the benefits affair. Including lawyers. Like consciously denying that there had been calls from victims and care workers in a concrete file. But also finding that the coordination of the activities of officials in files had to be qualified as unclear and chaotic. In other words: an absolute mess. Unworthy of a democratic rule of law and government. It is not without reason that the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee's investigation into the Allowances affair was given the telling title. Blind to people and justice. The essence of what the benefits scandal was about.

The services provided by the tax authorities are also far from smooth behind the scenes. Due to multiple causes. Outdated ICT systems that are difficult to exchange data between each other or can be coordinated, the devastation of many experienced officials, an acute staff shortage and other causes. While the activities are increasing significantly. For example, because of the box 3 problem.

The Tax Telephone is the first and only point of contact for all questions and problems for every customer and taxpayer of the tax authorities. Legally, this means that it is extremely important for the customer to confirm the call contact immediately, in order to have legal proof that, in case of problems, the alarm has been raised in time. That was one of the main pain points in the Benefits scandal.

Such a legally important confirmation cannot be given by an employee of the Tax Telephone. To my surprise, I was told that. In order to receive that confirmation, I had to submit a letter to the tax office in my region, authorizing the Tax Office to confirm my call with them. A completely unworkable detour that does not guarantee that the confirmation will actually be received by the customer via that detour.

The lying and deceiving of phone contacts by officials was a major cause of much trouble for benefit victims who were unable to prove that they had actually contacted the Surcharges Service at certain times.

For me, a call confirmation was important as proof to always be able to show that I had raised the alarm in time about an important internal error with the tax authorities. Namely, having failed to report and process an granted objection to an assessment to the National Debt Collection Center. As a result, I had wrongly received a collection letter urging me to pay a certain residual debt to the treasury, while I should arguably receive money from the State on balance. In order to stop that collection train, I was obliged to call the Tax Office, because any other method of first contact is deliberately blocked by the tax authorities in the communication process for all customers.

The most bizarre thing about this call contact was that I discovered that the employee was able to get to my file quickly and saw that the collection train with wagons full of latent fines, interest and injunctions should rightly be stopped, but could do nothing at all myself. He was only able to refer me to the objector and the telephone number on the letter of the decision on my objection. I called that number after contacting the Tax Office. It turned out to be a telephone line that, after a few seconds, got the message. unreachable indicated.

The final outcome of my mandatory round of calls with the Tax Telephone, in order to stop a demonstrably unjustified collection process, had therefore literally only caused me a lot of irritation and annoyance and nothing else. I could only conclude that the title of the report on the benefits affair “Blind voor man en recht” also fits seamlessly with the aforementioned services provided by the tax authorities.

In response to the disappointing progress of my call contact, I reported my bizarre experiences to the Ministry of Finance, which includes the tax authorities, and expressed my legal turmoil about the way things are going. Mindful of the results of the parliamentary investigation into the Allowance Affair. At the same time, I asked them to respond to the discoveries that were fierce for me as a lawyer.

The request meant that action has now been taken to stop the collection train in my file. Officially, I haven't received a definitive message about this yet whether that worked or not. However, clarity was provided about the telephone line, which communicated the message “line is unreachable, please try again later”, and remained unreachable for me after several attempts. Afterwards, this turned out to be caused by a switching error to a telephone line that could be picked up by a tax employee.

The other findings I mentioned to them were further unanswered in the context of adversaries. Presumably because the criticism by the tax authorities cannot be contradicted. A serious finding for millions of customers of the tax authorities who will ever be required to contact the aforementioned Tax Office for a tax question or problem.

If proof of having raised the alarm in time cannot even be automatically confirmed, and the customer must therefore trust that the note in the tax file will not be denied later, that fact clearly points to the fact that the tax authorities are infected with the rule of law, reprehensible benefits virus that has caused many victims in the Netherlands. By a government that apparently still does not want to take its citizens seriously and does not treat them as people but as a file with a number.

A disconcerting observation when it comes to mind that an NSC administrator at the Ministry of Finance is now politically responsible for the tax authorities. Then you can expect that the activities and the quality of the process management of the tax authorities should stand the test of at least complying with basic rule of law standards. Unfortunately, this is not the case even under the responsibility of an NSC Secretary of State.

More about:

tax phone, tax authorities, surcharges scandal, opinion