Tax Administration informs judges incorrectly – Financieele Dagblad

The Tax information withheld from the court. The court and the Supreme Court are thus misled the Nieuwsuur reported Monday.

In a case of an alleged black saver against the tax authorities introduced the tax authorities not to reveal the identity of an anonymous tipster. The tax authorities would have promised the informant anonymity when buying Luxembourg bank data. The Tax Office has come to the track through the data hundreds of savings. One of them went to court to find out the identity of the informant.

Not fair and transparent ‘

with the informant from the entire agreement of the Tax Administration show that no guarantee has been given for anonymity. “The informant has indicated that it wishes to remain anonymous in discussions with the tax authorities. But the tax authorities have indicated that no guarantees can be provided at this point, is in agreement. Followed by “The informant is willing, despite the lack of a guarantee of anonymity, the information he has to hand over a fee to the tax authorities.”

constitutional Law Professor Paul Bovend’Eert says Nieuwsuur that the Tax Administration has misled the judges:” This is a government that takes a court in the cheated. It is a government that is not fair and transparent. ” The president of the court of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, Fred Shop, the way the Tax calls informed the court about the promised anonymity of the tipster “very disappointing and even shocking.”

Doubt about reliability

The court and the court ruled last year that the tax authorities should disclose the name of the informant, because there were doubts about its reliability. Who refused that because a contract anonymity would be promised to the tipster. A Fiod official explained about under oath: “Anonymity is based on the civil contract. Anonymity was one of the conditions for the conclusion of the agreement. ”

Because of the refusal were judges only see a contract in which important passages were painted black. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the name of the informant was allowed to remain anonymous.

The Ministry of Finance, in a reaction opposite Nieuwsuur filled the blackened paragraph is not in contradiction with what is in the courtroom and beyond is said about the anonymity of the tipster.