Victim of the benefits affair is not reimbursed for accounting costs

ACCOUNTANCY, FISCAL, NEWS

November 16, 2023 by Accountancy This Morning

A woman received childcare allowance for years. She claimed that errors were made in the calculation. The tax authorities partly agreed with her and granted compensation. The woman did not agree to this. Among other things, she demanded that her accountant's account, which she had used to prove her right, be reimbursed. The judge recently ruled.In 2021, the tax authorities admitted that errors were made when assessing the years 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The woman received compensation of 49,004 euros for this, but also found that her situation had also been misassessed in 2007. She should have paid back childcare allowance over this year. In her own words, this was unjustified: according to her, there had been “institutional bias or unfairness of a predominant nature”, referring to the child benefits affair.

Payment scheme

Contrary to what the Tax Administration/Surcharges stated, the woman said, she did request a payment arrangement in 2007. This was in vain. In the following years, her accountant was busy getting her a payment arrangement for all tax debts, including those related to the childcare allowance. After the hearing, she provided the court with a statement from the auditor with attachments to support it. She also argued that requests for a payment arrangement had also been rejected orally. She also found that the costs should be reimbursed for her accountant. On the other hand, the Tax Authority/Surcharges argued that the investigation conducted after the hearing showed that the woman had not been refused a payment arrangement for the 2007 tax year (and the years surrounding it). According to the Tax Authority/Surcharges, she was therefore not entitled to an O/GS allowance. The plaintiff was also not refused a payment arrangement for other types of benefits or other parts of the tax authorities. In doing so, the Tax Authority/Surcharges saw no reason to reimburse the accountant's costs.

Allowance affair

First of all, the court noted that the file and the statements made by the plaintiff and her son at the hearing clearly show that the benefits affair left a mental imprint on her and her children. Understandably, the plaintiff feels that there is one major injustice that occurred over several years, according to the court. However, because this case was only about compensation for the 2007 tax year, the court was only able to assess whether the Tax Authority/Fees plaintiff had rightly not awarded compensation for that year.

Accountant fees

The court found that the woman could not have made it plausible that she had made a request for a payment arrangement that could relate to the 2007 tax year. Indeed, the file showed that this recovery was offset against the childcare allowance for the 2012 tax year on 9 December 2011. It was also evident from the woman's auditor's overview. The plaintiff's request for a personal payment arrangement for the 2007 tax year must therefore have been made between the time of the final determination of the 2007 childcare allowance on December 30, 2010 and the settlement of the recovery on December 9, 2011. The plaintiff did not substantiate this with the auditor's statement. The auditor's letter shows that he has assisted the plaintiff since 2014. At that time, the recovery had already been settled and thus satisfied. The auditor's documents therefore cannot relate to the recovery of the 2007 tax year, according to the court. Everything else that the plaintiff has raised about requests for payment arrangements does not specifically relate to that period. From the auditor's statement, the court deduced that the attachment concerns the period after 2011, so that the plaintiff's statement about the attachment could not be substantiated either. The court therefore rejected the woman's claim and, with the Tax Authority/Surcharges, was of the opinion that the accounting costs did not have to be reimbursed.Read here the ruling.