Several tax experts are now responding to details in the secret memo from lawyers at the Prime Minister’s office, with suggestions on how political leadership should defend politicians’ tax benefits.
–
– The proposals in the note from the Prime Minister’s Office (SMK) show that there is a high level of contempt for the tax authorities ‘work with politicians’ tax cases – and a lack of respect for the trade union’s legal opinion. This corresponds with the culture that seems to prevail among a number of parliamentary representatives in this field. Such an office is not trustworthy.
This is what Professor Emeritus Arvid Aage Skaar at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo says after reading the internal memorandum about the top politicians’ tax situation that VG revealed this week. Skaar is a former office manager in the Tax Directorate, a long-term partner in the law firm Wiersholm and has tax as a field.
–In the wake of the commuter housing revelations over the past six months, several top politicians risk large tax bills. Both the Storting’s administration and the Prime Minister’s office may have paid too little in employer’s contributions.
Two ministers and a president of the Storting have resigned and several elected representatives have contacted the tax authorities to have their commuter cases assessed.
When the memorandum was written and sent on 14 December, the police, the Tax Administration and the Office of the Auditor General were already in full swing with investigations and investigations involving both top politicians, SMK and the Storting’s administration.
– It is incredible that senior officials at the Prime Minister’s office actually seem to be proposing that politicians should oppose the professional authorities’ work with the commuter housing issue. It is the tax authorities who will decide on the taxation of the Storting representatives’ income, and the police and prosecuting authorities will decide on any criminal prosecution, says Skaar.
Skaar reacts in particular to the actions that top lawyers at the Prime Minister’s office in December suggested that Jonas Gahr Støre (Labor Party) should take.
«Favorable taxation [ …] is now under pressure from the Tax Administration / Tax Law Department “, the lawyers wrote. They suggested that Støre externally point to “unclear regulations” as the reason why politicians could “make mistakes”.
–Legal staff and head of operations Therese Steen at SMK also proposed that a government-appointed committee be set up at the request of the Storting to investigate the tax aspects of the benefits of Storting and government politicians.
The maneuver from the lawyers at SMK could strain both the investigations and the police investigation, because it cast doubt on the legal basis and suggested that the tax law should be interpreted in a new way, said former Auditor General Per-Kristian Foss to VG Tuesday.
Skaar agrees with that assessment.
– The role mix is worrying
Associate Professor Eivind Furuseth at the Department of Law and Management at BI Norwegian School of Management also reacts to parts of the content of the memorandum.
– The role mix is worrying, says Furuseth.
–He interprets the proposals in the note to the effect that the government intends to take on the role of the Storting.
– It is strange that the government through political control tries to construct the tax administration in a new direction when it comes to taxation of
politicians’ various schemes. It is a job for the legislature, ie the Storting, to possibly change, says Furuseth.
He is also in doubt as to whether there is a need for a new sample.
– There is already a committee underway, which is working on revising the tax law. It is not unnatural that they also look at this, he says.
SMK rejects
Anne Kristin Hjukse, head of communications at SMK, denies that the purpose of the memo was to interfere in the ongoing investigations and the police investigation.
– Skaar has misunderstood what we propose in the note. We have never taken the initiative for politicians to interfere in existing issues or the understanding of current regulations, Hjukse writes in an e-mail to VG.
–She rejects the role mix Furuseth points out.
– Any changes in the tax law must of course be approved by the Storting as legislator. It is a completely normal legislative process that a committee comes up with proposals which are then assessed by the government after a round of consultation, and then submitted to the Storting, says Hjukse.
Professor Skaar is aware that SMK rejects VG’s understanding of the note. Skaar insists on his understanding of the note and responds by referring to the specific wording.
This is what the note looked like:
–Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has not answered VG’s questions about the memorandum, including whether he supports the lawyers’ conclusions. When VG first mentioned the note on Tuesday, SMK’s communications manager described it as follows:
– The internal memorandum that VG has been given access to is about the need for new and clear rules on taxation of politicians’ goods. It is not about how the current rules are to be understood, nor is it about intervening in the relevant cases concerning commuter housing. It is inconceivable that political leadership should intervene in the ongoing cases, and the government here has obviously not proposed anything like this, writes communications manager Anne Kristin Hjukse in a reply to VG.
– The Prime Minister’s office has the employer function for politicians in the government apparatus. The debate about commuter housing shows that there have been different practices and different perceptions of how the rules should be understood. When the regulations on what benefits politicians have in their positions are unclear, it is our job to initiate processes to get a clearer regulation that is also easier to understand. The memorandum VG has been given access to is part of that job.
Defends SMK
Professor of political science Jostein Askim at the Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo tells VG that he understands SMK’s handling well.
– When I read this newspaper article, I thought that “here the Prime Minister’s office has done its job”. It is not surprising or discouraging to me that the office in the Prime Minister’s office gives advice to the Prime Minister. To me, it also sounds like a wise piece of advice, not least that the initiative for a committee should come from the Storting.
One of Askim’s disciplines is the relationship between political leadership and the administration. He is now leading a research project which, among other things, is about the civil service on SMK’s role vis-à-vis the government and the prime minister.
–– The government provides not only advice on the content of political issues, but also on what is politically smart and possible to achieve. This happens in all ministries all the time, in Norway as in other countries. The only thing that makes this case special is that VG has obtained the internal memo.
– But the tax experts in the Tax Administration do not believe that there is any doubt about the regulations. Should the Prime Minister’s Office then challenge it?
– There are competent lawyers both at SMK, in the Storting, in the law firm Grette, in the Tax Administration and at the Ministry of Finance who do not interpret this equally. As I understand the note, SMK proposes a process to get a clarification of what is correct.
–
