A woman lived in Italy in 2019 and 2020 and received sickness benefit from the UWV during those years. She filed tax returns for both years, in which she declared the benefits as 'taxed elsewhere' and entered a figure of nil. The tax inspector issues the tax assessments automatically, in accordance with the tax returns. Later, the woman lodges an objection to the 2020 tax assessment, stating that she does not receive any income in the Netherlands. The tax inspector subsequently issues additional tax assessments for 2019 and 2020, as he considers that the Netherlands does have the right to tax the sickness benefit payments.
Grounds for a supplementary assessment
The inspector maintains that this constitutes a recognisable error. The tax returns were processed automatically and were not assessed manually. The court considers that a supplementary assessment is possible if an assessment has been set too low due to an error on the part of the woman, unless the inspector has knowingly accepted the error. The latter is not the case. The tax assessments were set too low by the automated assessment system, not due to any misjudgement on the part of the inspector. As the difference between the tax assessments and the tax due amounts to more than 30%, it is assumed that the errors were reasonably foreseeable for the woman. The court rules that there are valid grounds for a supplementary assessment.
Prohibition on deterioration
The woman argues that she should not be placed in a worse position as a result of lodging an objection (the prohibition of 'reformatio in peius'). After all, the additional tax assessments were imposed following her objection. The court ruled that the tax inspector had not breached this prohibition. The legislature did not intend for the prohibition to apply where there is an independent ground for additional assessment. Since the inspector was authorised to impose additional assessment notices, the exercise of this power does not conflict with the prohibition.