Taxation Taxpayer withholds information from ombudsman: official contacted tax evaders’ lawyers and anticipates whose case will be taken to police

Parliamentary Deputy Ombudsman Maija Sakslin has accused the tax administration of withholding information. The tax administration did not provide all the relevant information when Sakslin clarified the information received by tax streets in 2017.

After the decision, it became clear to Sakslin from articles in Iltalehti that the tax administration kept secret information about the contacts of its officials with lawyers and other jurists.

The information was found in an article in Iltalehti. It reported on information that had previously been obscured, according to which “at least one tax evading agent also contacted a leading expert from the tax administration in the spring of 2014”. The contacts concerned the rectification claims of the Swiss tax streets.

Abroad a prime minister was planned for those who hid their wealth Juha Sipilän (central) government during the tax relief if they declare their income to the taxpayer on their own initiative.

At the same time, the risk of being caught increased as states had improved access to information on bank deposits in tax havens.

The bill, which offered tax breaks, was canceled, but many tax evaders registered with the taxpayer for fear of disclosure. Some of them survived the tax increase, but some filed a criminal report with the taxpayer.

The bottom line is that both methods cannot be used. If the taxpayer ends up raising taxes, the same matter can no longer be dealt with in criminal proceedings.

Read more: Wealthy families and entrepreneurs have been hiding their money in banks and foundations for decades – hidden assets revealed when the law promised by Sipilä’s board collapsed

Journal information after that, Sakslin launched a new investigation into why he had not received all the information from the tax authorities.

According to the precautionary administration’s replies, they understood the request for clarification to be limited to the tax administration’s guidelines and instructions, not to individual discussions.

Sakslin does not believe this, as the complaint also referred to advice for tax evaders’ lawyers and other solicitors.

In his decision, Sakslin emphasizes that the Ombudsman’s right to information is based on the Constitution. He has the right to obtain from the authorities all the information he needs to review his legality.

For this reason, the authority has an emphasized obligation to provide adequate and truthful information.

However, the tax administration’s reports did not indicate that, following an internal meeting of the tax administration, the officials who took part in it continued the discussion by e-mail. It considered whether certain customers should be treated differently because some tax evading agents had already been given different advice and guidance.

One a leading expert said in the thread that he had spoken to a lawyer who had 22 tax evasion clients. He said he gave the lawyer incorrect information about which cases would be handled by the tax increase and where the criminal report would be made.

“For the first time, the euro-denominated threshold for criminal consideration would be lowered for these 22 customers, who have not been caught in the cluster but have declared their income on their own initiative after discussing it with a representative of the Tax Administration. questionable, ”the expert wrote to his colleagues.

In his view, because of erroneous advice, these tax evaders should be given some protection when considering whether to file a criminal report.

Sakslin deplores the fact that the tax administration did not report on this thread in its reports. He was also not informed that, according to the lead expert, the set of 22 clients represented by one lawyer should be treated differently from other clients.

According to Sakslin, the message chain shows that the number of 22 customers was significant. It was therefore not just an individual case, but a line drawing on how the advice given by the lead expert affected their client’s treatment.

“I think this important line and the debate behind it would have been appropriate and justified to state in the explanations and opinion issued following the complaint. An open investigation would have been particularly important, as the complaint explicitly suspected the tax administration’s contacts with the claimants’ agents and the equality and legality of the tax administration’s procedure, ”says Sakslin.

Sakslin considers the negligence of the tax administration to be significant, as a result of which the constitutional right of access to information of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer was not properly exercised.

Other the tax administration received allegations of equal treatment of customers. According to Sakslin, in his discussions with the lawyer, the lead expert had predicted which cases would be taken to criminal investigation. The official’s own policy was milder than that of the internal meeting.

“That’s why he also suggested that these customers should be given some protection, meaning that they should have been treated less favorably than other customers.”

According to Sakslin, the guidance and counseling of an official did not meet the requirements of good administration.