What are the consequences of the recognition of institutional racism by the tax authorities? †

Last Wednesday it was announced that the cabinet would recognize that part of the Tax and Customs Administration is the victim of institutional racism. A letter with further explanation about this is expected today.

State Secretary Marnix van Rij of the Tax and Customs Administration did not say much about the matter on Wednesday. But what does such recognition entail and what can victims do with it? Four questions and answers:

What is Institutional Racism?

According to Van Rij, racism at the Tax Authorities was not aimed at systematically excluding people on the basis of race or origin, but at ‘patterns that have penetrated the organization’.

Ashley Terlouw, professor of sociology of law at Radboud University, explains that institutional discrimination means that discrimination is part of the system. “These are practices or procedures that systematically disadvantage certain groups. That was the case at the tax authorities, Van Rij now admits.”

Institutional racism is about people being disadvantaged because of their “race”. Race refers to skin color or origin, but also to surname or passport. This usually concerns people with an immigrant background.

What happened to the tax officer?

From 2013 to March 2020, the Tax and Customs Administration registered the personal data of possible scammers, the so-called Fraudesignaleringsfacility. There were a total of 270,000 people on this scam list. The forerunners of the fraud system have been around since 2001.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority concluded that such storage of personal data for two decades was an unlawful violation of fundamental rights on an unprecedented scale. The result was a record fine.

Consultancy firm PwC investigated the list of fraudulent practices of the Tax Authorities. This showed that non-Western people were subject to stricter controls. The emails also referred to “another fraudulent asylum seeker”. Research by PwC also showed that people who donate money to a mosque run the risk of being blacklisted.

There were work instructions stating that these issues had to be addressed. As a result, part of the Tax and Customs Administration placed more emphasis on personal characteristics than on tax characteristics.

Why was institutional racism not recognized before?

Van Rij previously admitted that the action was wrong and described it as discriminatory, but did not want to talk about racism at the time. Prime Minister Rutte also said he did not believe that there was institutional racism in the Dutch government at the time.

“I think it’s a play on words,” says Terlouw. “Probably Van Rij said this because he just wanted to admit that a few people were wrong, but because he wanted to admit that the tax authorities hadn’t. That is why the Secretary of State minimized what had happened. So: ‘It’s great that he now admits that there is discrimination. system.’

Van Rij has discussed this twice in the cabinet. He said he had yet to mark the ‘s and cross out the t’s last Wednesday. Negotiating proper wording can stem from fear of lawsuits and harm from potential victims.