Committee request response

Return address P.O. Box 20201 2500 EE The HagueChairman of the House of Representatives General P.O. Box 200182500 EA THE HAGUeDate: February 3, 2023Subject: VC Fin's response: December 29, 2022Dear Chairman, on December 29, 2022, the Standing Committee on Finance requested a response to an email from the Foundation for the Recovery of Unknown Injustice dated December 8, 2022. This is largely individual case studies, for which there is now also contact between the initiators. initiator of the foundation and the Implementation Organization for Recovery of Allowances (UHT). The following is the response to the eight topics suggested, maintaining the subject and order of the letter.The child arrangementThe letter states that the damage to children may exceed the payments to the children through the child scheme. It is not disputed that the impact of the problems with the childcare allowance goes beyond parents' lives alone. Offering financial compensation and emotional recovery to parents and their children who have faced the problems caused by the childcare allowance is therefore an important part of the recovery operation. With the child scheme, we recognize that children have seriously suffered as a result of the problems with the childcare allowance. For this reason, the child scheme was developed. The child scheme consists of financial compensation and a non-financial part consisting of broad support in five habitats from municipalities and additional offers for emotional recovery. The child scheme aims to provide support for the future. It is not compensation. Currently, affected children are receiving a letter aimed at recognition. The first payments were made in December. Children and young people who fall under the child scheme can count on them to be actively involved in the coming period to participate in the discussion about how their emotional recovery will take place.Mediation and VSOsIt is also asked whether victims who are also entrepreneurs can opt for customized treatment. All requests and objections are dealt with individually and are therefore customized. By determining duress, a personal case handler can provide the desired customized treatment (possibly via the municipality). Based on the questioner's introduction, the question here is probably about the possibility of dealing with the objection in mediation or through the settlement agreement pilot (VSO). I refer you to the progress report on recovery operation surcharges for the 4th quarter of 2022 sent today for a state of play on mediation and the VSO pilot.Debt approachThe letter states that the All Paid Debt Office is intended to pay loans that have been repaid with compensation, but that the experiences are different. Clarification about this counter is being requested. Debt paid by the parent with the compensation allowance can be filed at SBN's All Paid Debt Counter. The conditions that these debts must meet are the same as the conditions at the Private Debt Office. One of these conditions is that it concerns due debts that arose in the period between 1 January 2006 and 1 June 2021. Due and payable means that the debts have been paid too late. This is not about the principal amounts of loans, but arrears, interest and other deposits by the creditor. The documents that the parent must provide as proof are on the SBN.1 websiteThe entrepreneur as a victimThe letter draws attention to the specific problems of affected parents who are entrepreneurs; the Parent Panel has also drawn attention to this. The affected parent who is an entrepreneur (self-employed person, sole trader, vof) and who is personally liable for all the company's debts can file the debts with SBN. When resolving entrepreneurs' debts, the European rules on state aid must be taken into account, which uses the de minimis scheme. In short, this de minimis scheme ensures that a company within a certain segment can receive a maximum amount of support from the government. This aid — provided that it is within the de minimis limit — does not constitute unauthorised State aid. The assumption in the letter that a affected parent who is an entrepreneur with business debts does not fall under state aid rules is false. To help the parent with a high risk of state aid not to cross the state aid limit, a special team has been set up to help with this. Together with the parent, this team identifies what business debts exist and whether de-minimis support from the government has previously been provided. It will then be examined whether all business debts can be resolved within the de- minimis limit. If this is not the case, the parent has a choice about which business debts are resolved; the team can - if desired - help the parent with this choice. There are currently four parents who have failed to resolve all business debts within the de minimis limit. If there is damage suffered by affected parents who are entrepreneurs, this damage can be reported to the Actual Damage Committee. For the damage, of course, there must be some degree of plausibility and causality between the recovery and/or cessation and the damage. However, with regard to damage outside the debt scheme that qualifies for compensation, the de minimis scheme does not apply.Integral and CWS; VSO and MediationThe letter asks about the possible rules regarding priority for certain parents in comprehensive treatment. First of all, with regard to the length of the waiting time, regardless of the background and reasons for the objection, it is also a major concern for UHT that the waiting times are long. There are many reasons for this, but unfortunately they do not help in individual cases. The average processing time of the procedure at CWS is currently over nine months. In principle, priority is not given to certain groups of parents, because UHT is committed to treating everyone completely equally. If there are unavoidable expenses that are necessary to prevent irreversible consequences, an application can be submitted for an advance. The concern for long waiting times is widely shared. With a coherent package of measures, UHT wants to reduce waiting times as quickly as possible.Death of parent and childThe letter also draws attention to the situation where a parent or child died before or during the recovery process. Arrangements are being worked on for the relatives of a deceased affected parent and a deceased child. These regulations are part of the additional bill for the Restorative Surgery Surcharges Act. The aim is to present the bill to your House in April 2023.The hardship clauseThe letter draws attention to a hardship scheme. The Recovery Surgery Surcharges Act regulates who and under what conditions is eligible for a recovery measure. This offers legal certainty and contributes to equal treatment of equal cases. Certain articles contain conditions that leave little room for review. This was consciously chosen by the legislator. However, the Tax Authority/Surcharges may deviate from the law on the basis of the hardship clause insofar as, in view of its purpose or scope, application of the relevant article (the conditions mentioned there) will lead to a so-called predominant unfairness. This will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I can't comment on individual cases. The Tax Authority/Surcharges is developing a policy framework for dealing with hardship requests. It is intended to include requests to apply the hardship clause, insofar as decision-making in this regard is mandated to the Tax Authority/Surcharges, into the regular assessment process.The immaterial damageFinally, the letter asks questions about the non-material damage of 500 euros per six months and about the calculation examples sent with the 12th Progress Report.2 As also included in the 12th Progress Report, this is a fictitious example that results from various cases in the context of determining additional actual damage. The fictitious example is intended to give parents a better idea of the application of the assessment framework for non-material damage, which is used by the CWS when preparing advice. In the fictitious example, the amount of the non-material damage based on the assessment framework exceeds the statutory 500 euros per six months referred to in the letter. The 500 euro per six months is the amount that is applied to the compensation scheme under the Recovery Operation Surcharges Act (comprehensive assessment) .That amount was also taken as a starting point in the Omzien in verwonderment report and is also in line with the amounts such as those are used outside the recovery operation to compensate for immaterial damage.3 Such as the fictitious example illustrates, when determining the additional actual damage, there is room to offer customization and to achieve higher compensation for immaterial damage. In response to a question in the letter, there was no external coordination about the fictitious example (other than with the CWS), not even with BarentsKrans or Pels Rijcken. As part of a request submitted under the Open Government Act (Woo), also mentioned in the letter, relevant underlying documents will be identified; such documents will be made public in accordance with the Wo.Sincerely, the Secretary of State for Finance — Surcharges and Customs, Aukje de Vries