The coalition alludes to amending the “hidden change of the law” in the collective objection procedures | Currently

The coalition alludes to amending the "hidden change of the law" in the collective objection procedures |  Currently

ChristenUnie wants Cabinet to investigate whether the rules for the mass citizen objection procedure can be modified. In the case of a group objection, an objection is filed on behalf of a large group of people, recently, for example, in relation to the savings tax in Box 3. Since 2016, it is no longer automatically that the court decision applies in the case of such a group objection Also for people who have not filed a lawsuit.

The fact that you can no longer automatically be “loaded on the back” in a mass objection procedure could have dire consequences for citizens “who are well-meaning, less assertive and/or not familiar with the legal process,” Christinoni MP Peter Peter wrote. Grinwis in motion. VVD, CDA, and D66 also support the call.

“It’s a completely sneaky amendment to the law,” Grinwis says of the amendment in the 2016 tax plan. Not discussed during the parliamentary debate on the law – a very comprehensive package – discovered by Grinwis.

That is why the deputy wants the Council of Ministers to investigate the results of this amendment to the law and search for improvements.

The result can be seen with the saving tax

Currently the results of this amendment to the law can be clearly seen in the discussion on the savings tax in Box 3. A group of taxpayers filed a joint objection against the tax on savings, which, in their view, was unfair. At the end of last year, the Supreme Court proved that small savers were right. They are entitled to compensation.

See also  US Senate fails to pass government funding and debt ceiling measures

According to the judge, savers who did not participate in the case, but are in the same situation, are not entitled to compensation.

The decision will always be up for debate

The Cabinet has yet to decide whether to compensate all savers or only small savers – as the House would like. There is no definition of what exactly a “small saver” is.

The government has already announced that the objectors will be compensated. Funds have already been allocated for this. Which solution is chosen for the non-opponents will always be up for debate.

For if the government strictly adheres to the judgment of the court and does not compensate non-dissidents, there is always an accusation that citizens in the same situation are treated differently by the government.

Perhaps a measure is being worked on to compensate some of the non-dissidents. It is not yet clear exactly where the dividing line will be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.