5 No one seems to be responsible for institutional racism at the tax authorities

The government is aware that institutional racism takes place under the strict supervision of the tax authorities, but it is also about liability and consequences for victims. In the past, the IRS has put people on the scam list for no reason. Research by consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) shows that citizenship or a donation to a mosque can also play a role.

Minister of State Marnix van Rij (Finance) concludes that institutional racism at tax offices is “extremely painful”.

At the same time, the government does not want to talk about direct discrimination. “Whether this is the case must be assessed and determined on a case-by-case basis (or a group of similar cases).

PwC conducted an investigation into the scam list last year. There appeared to be work instructions that prescribe that certain personal characteristics, such as nationality, must be taken into account. An exploiter profile was also created. “People with a low income with an income (according to the tax return), often young, often without tax partners, often men and often foreign nationals, were monitored more closely.

According to PwC, it is not possible to reconstruct to what extent this manual is used by the tax authorities. It is therefore “difficult and possibly impossible” to assess on an individual level whether someone on the scam list has been discriminated against, Van Rij emphasizes. In general, it cannot make a statement about possible discrimination.

However, the public prosecutor was asked to give an opinion on the legal consequences of a possible violation of fundamental rights.

Cabinet makes it a matter of definition

The government makes a distinction between the terms direct discrimination and institutional racism. Only this first concept has a legal basis. If people are guilty of this, they can be prosecuted.

In the case of institutional racism, the situation is more complex. This concept is not included in the legislation. According to the Institute of Human Rights (Institute), institutional racism exists when “typically ingrained and structural mechanisms, procedures, habits or behaviors that sometimes seem difficult, in many different forms and often indirect.” certain groups of people disadvantaged because of their origin”. The government adopts this definition.

Institutional racism therefore does not require malicious intent. The Tax and Customs Administration also “had no policy behind it” and, according to Van Rij, worked “without malicious intent”.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs also points out that it does not affect all tax authorities. It concerned the behavior of “several employees”. Interviews were held with involved employees and management about the results of PwC. No one has been fired for this.

It took time to recognize institutional racism

The word finally fell on Monday, but the decision to acknowledge that there is genuine institutional racism was taken before the weekend. The cabinet had to discuss this twice, and then Van Rij needed a few more days to “put on the i”.

Above all, the firm wanted to handle the matter in a “friendly” way. Van Rij does not want the tax authorities to “enter the nursery”. According to the State Secretary, the selection of risks remains necessary and necessary to prevent and adequately control abuse.

The state secretary had previously described the tax authorities’ working method as “shameful” and “discriminatory”, but he did not want to talk about institutional racism at the time. This drew criticism from Rabin Baldewsingh, the cabinet-appointed national coordinator of discrimination and racism.

Getting on the list has had major consequences for thousands of people.

This is called the Fraud Signaling Facility (FSV). In the past, the tax authorities registered approximately 279,000 people in this system without their knowledge. They can get on the scam list for a variety of reasons and for many years they were considered suspicious scams by the tax authorities.

This has had important consequences for some. For example, refused payment terms or access to an amicable loan agreement. The IRS stopped using the list in February 2020.

The government is currently working on a compensation scheme for those who suffer these direct consequences. It is estimated to be a group of five thousand to fifteen thousand victims.