KPMG Report part 2: CAF Team

House of Representatives of the States General
2
Meeting year 2023—2024
31 066
No. 1414
kst-31066-1414
ISSN 0921 - 7371
The Hague 2024
Tax authorities
LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FINANCE
To the President of the House of Representatives of the States General
The Hague, June 27, 2024
The Allowance Affair is and remains a black page in the Dutch language.
historia. Many parents and children have been victims of the
government-wide, tough approach used in childcare
surcharge. The tax authorities are very aware of the role that the
has had an organization as the executor of the childcare allowance. In the
errors were made in execution. The Allowance affair had, and still has.
always having a significant impact on employees and the organization. The
employer sees that it affects employees personally in their daily lives
work and life and in discussing and providing insight into the past.
Divergent perspectives lead to emotions among (groups)
employees.
Part two of KPMG's investigation into the working methods of the
former Combiteam Approach Facilitators (CAF team), that I did with this
sending a letter to your House does not detract from the role of the tax authorities
in the benefits affair and the impact on employees and the organization.
Nevertheless, based on the KPMG investigation, we can conclude
become that the CAF team in the political and social debate has a
has been allocated a disproportionate share with regard to the
Allowances affair. This was unjustified. The cabinet, the parliament, the
implementation, media and the case law have all played a part in the
tough fraud policy and how it worked out for individual citizens. The
Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into Anti-Fraud and Services
concluded in her research that in a hardened politics and partnership
The climate of all state powers has been blind to man and law.
The management of the department, the tax authorities and the Department
Together with the employees, surcharges will be the process of internal
continuation of the reflection that has been started in recent years and from a connection
bring perspectives together as much as possible.
Since February 2023, KPMG has investigated the role and
working method of the former CAF team within the tax authorities. this
investigation has started in response to questions from member Omtzigt to
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414
1
to provide clarity about the files and the working methods of the
former CAF team. The first part of the study will take place on July 5, 2023
presented to your House, containing the first findings about the
positioning and working methods of the CAF team have been explained (Parliamentary paper)
31 066, No. 1262). The first part of the research provides an insight
provided in the governance and working methods of the CAF team as a whole. me
I also indicated that no conclusions could be drawn yet
are because a second part of the investigation will follow.
In the remainder of this letter, I will briefly discuss the results of the
first part of the investigation. Then I will discuss the approach to the
assessment and the results of the second part of the study. Now also
part two of the research is ready, I conclude based on this
research that is responsible for the activities of the
Indeed, the CAF team was not part of the CAF team. The CAF team worked
within the Fraud provided by the then Management Team
assignment to the CAF team. The CAF team's approach to the files is
tested with an assessment framework in the second part of the study
where KPMG made use of the existing frameworks at the time
of the CAF team's activities and general legal principles.
The purpose of the investigation was to conduct a factual investigation.
to provide insight into how the CAF team works. In the
Most of the files do not provide any findings.
KPMG has findings in 1% (7 files out of 591) of the files and
areas of focus identified where nationality plays a role
played in the research phase by the CAF team. Given the position
reporting and regular reports from the CAF team to various
this should have been reported earlier. As also explained
in the response to the first part of the study was in the starting period
the CAF team has a strong focus on combating fraud. In the
heavy policy focus on the part of the government to combat fraud in
this period, supervision guarantees an objective
analysis and possible selection sometimes disappeared too far from sight.
Some of these seven files with findings are still ongoing.
actions needed that I will explain below.
Part 1 of the investigation into the way the former works
CAF team
The first part of the research focused on the origin of the
CAF team. In August 2013, in response to the so-called
Bulgarian fraud by the responsible Fraud Management Team1 or
the tax authorities decided to set up a multidisciplinary
team: the Combiteam Approach Facilitators. The team's goal was to
targeted supervision of possible fraud facilitators as early as possible
to disrupt and stop the stage. The first sub-study shows that
the CAF team is not an independent organizational unit within the
The tax authorities were and therefore not a specific organization-oriented one.
had mandates, roles, or powers. The study also shows that
the CAF team's role was formally limited to investigating
signals provided and issuing non-binding advice to the
responsible service unit. The study also shows that
the Fraud Management Team and, from 2015, the Management Team
(1) The MT Fraud was established in mid-2013 as a specialization of the management team.
Tax authorities. The MT Fraud was chaired by the DG Tax Administration and, as members, the
directors of the following departments of the tax authorities: Customs, Taxation,
Allowances, FIOD, Central Administrative Processes, Information Provision, Tax and
Legal Affairs and later in time the Tax Telephone. In addition, a number of fraud decoys also
dinators of (the executive) service units and the CFO of the tax authorities participate in
the MT Fraud.
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414
2
Tax Administration, was widely familiar with the activities of the
CAF team and was regularly reported on this work.
The first part of the research has thus provided insight into the
governance and working methods of the CAF team as a whole.
In the letter to Parliament presenting this research to your House
I indicated that the research provides an image of a team
whose suspension and control alternated with the reorganizations in
the period that the CAF team was active. Decision-making and discussions
about the team were limited. This was part of a
informal culture at the tax authorities and the speed with which the team
was established. I also concluded in this letter that I agree with the
today's knowledge does not consider it desirable that a team with such
specific task: decision-making about and control of the
activities were only limited.
Part 2 of the investigation into the working methods of the former
CAF team
General conclusions about the CAF files
In the second part of the investigation, KPMG has the 591 CAF files
tested on the basis of the assessment framework established by KPMG, which is
designed based on the frameworks existing at the time and the general
legal principles.
KPMG reported on the CAF files in line with the ones at the time
twelve CAF themes identified by the CAF team. Given the fact
that the various CAF themes have different characteristics and are often also
various service units are involved is for testing the
CAF files under the assessment framework decided to be tested per CAF theme
and reporting. A flow chart then provides insight into
created how a case was handled by the CAF team and
are these activities (risk selection activities, desk research)
activities and field service activities) tested against the
assessment framework. A distinction has been made in three phases of treatment:
1) signal, 2) research, and 3) advice.
Coordination of CAF team activities and advice provided
The second sub-study confirms once again that the CAF team
had a defined role. The team received signals (both internally and
external), investigated these signals and gave advice
for follow-up to the responsible service units of the
Tax authorities. The CAF team did not provide advice in all matters.
KPMG has the results of the CAF team's work
viewed (advice or not). The investigation shows that in 288 files,
for various reasons, the CAF team has not given advice or the
CAF team has decided not to process the file. this
applies, for example, if a file related to support
of a service component, or because, for example, on the basis of the service provided
work by the CAF team concluded that these
files did not require further follow-up. For 26 files, based on
of the available documentation unknown or unclear whether there is a
advice has been given. For 277 cases, the CAF team does have advice
released for follow-up to the service units.
The CAF team had no specific organization-oriented mandates, roles, or
powers. For example, the CAF team was unable to work independently
stop surcharges or impose income tax assessments.
Examples of advice from the CAF team to the various
service components that emerge from the research are conducting
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414
3
or standard-setting conversations, having conversations with
student organizations to prevent unjustified housing allowance
requested, proposing legislative changes to legislate
clarifying and giving advice on carrying out outdoor work,
such as company visits and/or book surveys. It was on duty
third parties themselves whether or not to comply with these non-binding
advices. The CAF team was not responsible for the signals that
were provided to the CAF team, or the way in which service providers
share and follow up on these recommendations. The research also shows that
the CAF team deliberately chose not to process files as
these did not fit the team's tasks. This applies, for example, if
no form of organised fraud was detected by
the CAF team.
The second part of the research that is now before us aims to
map out the way the former CAF team works and activities
bring. The activities of the service units are not included here.
scope remained. In the second part, KPMG notes that in the recording
in the CAF files, there was a high degree of cooperation between the
CAF team and Surcharges are visible, which can lead to ambiguity
whether the CAF team or service unit has performed the work,
and who, in that context, is responsible for the correct execution and
recording the work carried out and the work carried out on that basis
decisions taken. Here, KPMG does state that the structures and
guarantees of Surcharges were arranged in such a way that Surcharges themselves
decided whether, or how, follow-up was given to
CAF studies and the associated findings and
advices.2 For the sake of completeness, in addition to KPMG's research, I would like to point out
the studies previously carried out by the ADR3 and the Advisory Committee
Implementation of Fees4 on the surcharge-related CAF cases.
Findings based on the assessment framework
In addition to reviewing the results of the activities of the
CAF team, KPMG tested the files against the assessment framework. From the
review by KPMG shows the following:
Conclusion
Explanation
Numbers
Files without
findings and without
consulting
Files without
findings and with
consulting
Files with unidentified
goodies
Files with a finding
gene
Total
These files have various reasons
not led to advice where none separate
reportable findings have been found
tarred.
These files led to advice
where no separately reportable findings
have been found with regard to the
preparation of these recommendations.
These are files where there are uncertainties.
detected.
These are files where KPMG actually
findings found. These concerns
no legal judgment about the
correctness.
250 (42%)
232 (39%)
102 (18%)
7 (1%)
591
A finding concerns a factual observation or area of focus.
with regard to a file in relation to the assessment framework used.
KPMG emphasises that these are factual findings and areas of focus
are based on the assessment frameworks and not legal judgments
2 Final Report Research Question Part 1b and 2 concerning Research Methods CAF, p. 86
3 Investigation of surcharge-related CAF cases, ADR, March 12, 2020.
4 Looking forward to wonder 2: Final advice Advisory Committee on Implementation of Allowances, March 12, 2020.
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414
4
formation or conclusions regarding the accuracy of what has been done
activities in these files.
Files with no findings
Based on the assessment framework, KPMG has a total of 482 files
no findings were found. Of these 482 files, KPMG has
232 files no findings to report on the creation
from the advice of the former CAF team. 250 files have, to
various reasons, not led to advice and there are none to separate
report findings found on the basis of the assessment framework.
Some files include the given nationality as part
of the proposed signal, but is there in the research or advice of
the CAF team did not use this data, or are the starting point
points can be traced directly from the transmitted signal. That's why constant
KPMG does not make any findings about these files. As explained earlier,
these signals were not provided by the CAF team, but did
the CAF team is only investigating the supplied signals.
In 20195, my predecessor decided to stop being a citizen.
to be used in enforcement, unless there is an explicit legal
basis for it. I also mentioned this in my letter to the PwC reports about
FSV of March 29, 2022 emphasiss.6 The files in which it was given
nationality has been suggested as part of a signal from for
this decision. Even then, this applied to the lawful processing of a
personal data as a nationality, a good basis from under
more the required proportionality and subsidiarity is needed in light of
the processing basis.
Files with ambiguities
Based on the available documentation, some files may
the activities of the CAF team are not subject to the assessment framework
tested. The second part of the investigation shows that in 102 files
uncertainties have been discovered.7 KPMG states that these are unclear
errors are not found errors, but reasons
why a file cannot be continued at a certain point
tested. There can be various reasons for ambiguities in
a file and why it cannot be further tested. It
For example, the CAF team does not have a suggested signal in all files
further arrested. With a number of files, it is unclear whether the CAF team
has given advice. It was also not always possible to
of the available information, the activities carried out for a
to establish a file. Finally, the activities of the
CAF team discontinued on July 3, 2020, causing some files to no longer be filed
were filled.
KPMG states that recording the various CAF files is not
was standardized and files did not contain the same level of detail.
The recording of the file depends on the topic under investigation.
and the individual handler of the file. This is consistent with the
findings from the first part of the study, which concluded
Unfortunately, there are no further instructions under the existing frameworks
found for preparing files by the former
CAF team.
5Parliamentary Documents II, 2019/2020, 31 066, No. 538
6 Parliamentary Documents II, 2021/2022, 31 066, No. 992
7 Examples include files where there is uncertainty about what was carried out by the CAF team
activities such as field service activities, desk research work and selections,
responsibilities or advice. In these cases, based on the available
documentation is unable to determine how these activities were carried out.
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414 5
For the 102 files where KPMG found ambiguities,
it — despite the fact that KPMG has been able to access the documentation from
the CAF files and additionally by the CAF team and client
collected and supplied information — this has not been possible
to further reconstruct. Based on this research and findings, I see
no reason to further investigate these files.
Findings files
In seven of the 591 files (1%), KPMG has findings in the investigation
detected. The KPMG report explains these files.
what activities have been carried out here.
• For two files (26 and 506) with findings, this is the signal
that was proposed by a service unit to the CAF team is
arrived from Selection at the Gate. In the activities of
the CAF team used in the analysis of this signal:
the given nationality. About using Gate Selection
I have previously informed your House, including conclusions
talked about the use of nationality in Selection at the Gate.8
• Analysis activities are carried out for two files (290 and 509)
occurred where nationality played a role, but this
activities have not led to specific advice on
case level.
• In three files (122, 245 and 272), nationality played a role in
the activities of the CAF team and the files led to
specific advice to service units.
As stated in the study, these are factual findings and
areas of focus based on the assessment framework that provide insight into
how the results of a CAF theme came about,
and no legal judgment or conclusions regarding the
accuracy of the work performed in these files. Because of the
complexity of the files, I refer you for the exact description of
the various files to the KPMG report for an extensive
detailed explanation.
Follow-up actions in response to the investigation
Since 2019, the given nationality has no longer been used in the
enforcement, unless there is an explicit legal basis for it. But
these files are from before that time. The use of nationality in the
supervision is legally complicated. This also applied to the 2019
lawful processing of personal data as a nationality, a
good substantiation of, among other things, the required proportionality and
subsidiarity is necessary in light of the processing basis. For
insofar as the use and processing of nationality may result in a
different treatment, does that apply to making a distinction between
based on nationality, very compelling reasons are necessary.
A final opinion on the legality and (possible) consequences
of the use of nationality in an individual case, however, may
are only given after careful review of all relevant
facts and circumstances of the specific case. I hereby note that
use of nationality in the analyses, even if it was unlawful, still
does not have to mean that taxpayers are actually different
have been treated (unevenly).
8 Parliamentary Documents II, 2021/22, 31 066, No. 992
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414
6
To assess whether there may be a violation of
fundamental rights with tax consequences, I intend to, in the
files where there is reason to do so, to join the previous
established system of Selection at the Poort.9
The Secretary of State for Finance,
M.L.A. van Rij
9 Parliamentary Documents II 2022—2023, 31 066, No. 1231
7
House of Representatives, meeting year 2023—2024, 31 066, No. 1414