COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 07.01.1998 
COM(97) 722 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
ON THE EXECUTION OF THE MATTHAEUS-TAX PROGRAMME FROM 
1 JANUARY 1996 TO 31 DECEMBER 1996 
(ARTICLE 11 OF THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 29 OCTOBER 1993) 
1. INTRODUCTION 
To ensure that the removal of frontier controls from 1 January 1993 did not encourage 
indirect tax (VAT and Excise duty) fraud, evasion and distortions of competition, a deep 
and enduring co-operation between national indirect tax administrations was required. To 
foster this co-operation, the Commission proposed an action programme for the training 
of indirect tax officials: "Matthaeus-Tax" which was adopted by the Council on 29 
October 19931. 
The objectives of the programme, as set out in Article 3 of the decision, are: 
to prepare indirect taxation officials of Member States for the implications arising 
out of the creation of the internal market and the development of administrative 
cooperation, and thus ensure a better application of Community law; 
to make national officials aware of the Community dimension of their work and 
to build mutual confidence between the indirect taxation administrations of 
Member States; 
to provide supplementary, adapted vocational training to indirect taxation 
officials; 
to utilise to the maximum advantage the knowledge of the indirect taxation 
services in the Community through greater mobility of staff and thus improve the 
management and the effectiveness of the internal market; 
to stimulate intensive and continuous cooperation at all levels of the relevant 
administrations with a view to them working together within the context of the 
internal market. 
These objectives are to be achieved through four means: exchanges of officials; training 
seminars; co-ordinated vocational training programmes; and language training for 
officials likely to participate in exchanges. 
These activities began on 1 July 1993. The Commission reports to Council and 
Parliament COM (95) 663 and COM (96) 543 covered the programme from 1 July 1993 
to 31 December 1994 and 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995 respectively. 
Council Decision of 29.10.1993, OJ n° L280 of 13.11.1993 
2. ACTIVITIES IN 1996 
2.1 Exchanges 
2.1.1 Objectives 
The main objective of the exchanges is to provide to indirect tax officials a better mutual 
understanding of the organisation, methods and procedures applied in different Member 
States. This understanding should be on both a practical and a theoretical level. This 
encourages better co-operation and the dissemination of best practice. Performing real 
duties in the host administration is an important method to meet these objectives. 
2.1.2 Organ isation 
In 1996, for the first time, full discretion was given to the Member States to choose the 
destination of their exchange officials (in 1995 only 50% were chosen this way; the rest 
were agreed between the Commission and the Member States). Responsibility was 
further decentralised in that each Member State was allocated an exchange budget (rather 
than a number of exchanges as in the past) and encouraged to make maximum use of it. 
The effect of this reform was to encourage the Member States to prioritise their needs in 
relation to the budget available. 
To ensure that the maximum use was made of resources, Member States reported at the 
half-year their predicted use of their budget. Funds were re-deployed from those Member 
States who predicted an under-spend (NL, UK) to those who predicted an overspend (F, 
FIN, B). 
Finally to improve the preparation and execution of the exchange programme, the 
Commission collated a dossier of guides to each national tax administration in order to 
provide basic background for each exchange official before their visit. Coupled with this, 
1996 saw a concerted attempt to move away from general exchanges (a general 
introduction to the host administration with a group of officials) to single exchanges 
(working alongside an equivalent) or targeted exchanges (a specific project). 
2.1.3 Activities 
218 exchanges took place in 1996 (116 in 1995, 95 in 1994, 88 in 1993). This increase 
was achieved through a better use of funds, and through a re-deployment of funds from 
seminars to exchanges. 34% of the exchanges were general, 25% single and 42% 
targeted. More details on the officials exchanged are set out in Annex A to this report. 
2.1.4 Evaluation 
The exchanges are monitored throughout the year by the Commission and the Member 
States. In addition officials (and from 1996, their line managers) provide feedback 
through questionnaires. National tax administrations were also asked for the first time in 
1996 to give their impressions of the value of the exchange programme. 
The comments from the national administrations, the officials and their line managers 
were overwhelmingly positive. B considered them to have been "crowned with success". 
D noted the great interest of its officials in the programme and the contribution to 
improving co-operation. The UK was very encouraged by the feedback from its officials, 
noting that other Member States had made real efforts to meet the needs of its officials. S 
noted that for one official acting as a host, the exchange had been one of their best 
experiences in the tax administration. The flexible new arrangements for organising 
exchanges and the greater emphasis on targeted exchanges were welcomed in particular 
by several Member States (I, F, B, UK, S, FIN). 
This was supported by comments from officials: "renewed morale and real stimulus for 
career" (B); "As well as operational benefits, the exchange has broadened the officer's 
perspective" (UK manager); "combination of a visit to the central office and the regional 
office was ideal" (DK); "the result of the exchange was positive and led to real and 
palpable benefits" (L). 
The exchange programme also led to real changes in national administrations. NL noted 
the improved understanding of how other Member States worked and the better informal 
communications which resulted. A noted several changes resulting from the programme: 
including the introduction of risk analysis; a great increase in the interest in language 
training; and co-operation in electronic data processing. 
Officials also reported inter alia: improvements in control methods e.g. "selection of 
dossiers for control through use of computers" (B); use of IT and audit techniques (P, EL, 
L); audit of newly registered companies (FIN); better use of risk analysis (A, FIN); better 
control of cash traders (P, UK); better control of excise duty (spirits) (P); setting up of 
large trader audit (EL); improvements to recovery payment systems and working 
practices (F); "professionalisation of specific fraud investigation and prosecution areas" 
(IRL); improving assistance given to taxpayers (F); development of trader training 
programme to eliminate errors (P); improved administrative co-operation (A, D, F). 
Improvements to the programme are however still possible: EL, S, F, DK thought 
individual and targeted exchanges were more valuable than general ones. D and EL 
emphasised the need for exchanges to be practical and related to the specific needs of the 
official. S emphasised the importance of a tailor-made programme for each exchange. 
Officials reported that: exchanges need to be longer if real co-operation is intended (D, B, 
F, L, I, FIN, UK); more prior contact in preparation and more flexibility during the 
exchange (B, IRL, S, F, E,); greater efforts to meet objectives by the host administration 
needed (EL, F, S); more practical work together, in particular real control work in the 
office and in the field (B, EL, F, FIN, S, A, D, NL); More specialised exchanges less 
grouped with other officials (A, B, D, E, P, IRL, UK, EL). 
These criticisms echo those made by exchange officials in previous years. Although real 
improvements in making exchanges more practical and more tailored to the needs of the 
official have been made, there is a need for more progress. In particular even greater 
efforts need to be made by host administrations to let officials from other Member States 
perform real duties. A recurring problem for some Member States is that national 
legislation, usually that applicable to tax confidentiality, restricts the duties that can be 
performed. The precise nature of these restrictions and the possibilities for working 
within them will need to be considered by the Commission and the Member States in the 
future. 
A quantitative evaluation of the exchanges, based on the questionnaires completed by 
officials and their line managers is set out in Annex A. 
2.2 Seminars 
2.2.1 Objective 
The objective of the seminar programme is to provide the best forum for the structured 
exchange of ideas between officials from national administrations. The seminars provide 
the opportunity for: the dissemination of best practice among Member States; the analysis 
of common problems and solutions; the training of officials in the Community dimension 
of their work; and the enhancement of administrative co-operation. The seminars may 
also lead to suggestions for the improvement of the Community legal instruments in 
force. 
2.2.2 Activities 
Ten seminars were organised in 1996 (11 in 1995, 8 in 1994, 6 in 1993). Two of the 
seminars were financed from the 1995 budget and were covered in the 1995 report. 
About 300 officials attended. Brief descriptions of each seminar are set out in annex B. 
2.2.3 Evaluation 
Participants completed questionnaires at the end of each seminar. Six months later each 
Member State completes a further questionnaire designed to evaluate the medium term 
impact of the seminar. Detailed analysis of these questionnaires is set out in annex B. In 
general, according to the immediate evaluations, the 1996 seminars were marginally less 
successful than those in 1993-95. However the six month evaluations are more positive. 
As well as being useful overall and successful in deepening understanding of the issues, 
11%) of the seminars had led to changes in working practices, 33% to follow-up meetings 
and 51%o to other forms of follow-up in national administrations. 
2.3 Common training programme 
2.3.1 Objective 
The Matthaeus-Tax decision establishes the objective of developing a common core of 
training. 
2.3.2 Activities 
The Commission adopted a decision2, following consultation with the Member States, 
setting out a common programme of vocational training as required by Article 4 (c) of the 
Matthaeus-Tax decision in 1995. 1996 was the first full year of implementation. Details 
of this implementation are set out in Table 24 in Annex C. 
2.3.3 Evaluation 
Table 24 shows that, as for 1995, some Member States have had great difficulties in 
supplying data on the training given to their officials, despite efforts from the 
Commission to clarify the data required. The problem of this lack of data is addressed in 
the FISCALIS programme proposals. Given the incomplete nature of the data available 
both in 1995 and 1996, no reliable conclusions can be drawn. 
2.4 Language training 
2.4.1 Objective 
The Matthaeus-Tax decision stipulates that language training should be given to officials 
likely to participate in exchange activities. 
2.4.2 Activities 
Annex D sets out the details of language training and its results in 1996. 
2.4.3 Evaluation 
As for the common training programme, the figures provided by some Member States on 
the language training given to their officials are, as for 1995, too incomplete to permit 
reliable conclusions to be addressed. Under FISCALIS, it is proposed to tackle this data 
problem. However the data supplied by officials participating on the exchanges does 
provide a sample of taxation officials which can be evaluated. Whilst officials still feel 
able to communicate in their host country fairly well, the level of proficiency in the host 
country language appears to have fallen. The number of exchange officials attending 
language courses remains static at about 20 per cent. 
3. MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS 
3.1 Management 
The programme is run by a co-ordinator in each Member State (usually two where the 
Excise and VAT administrations are separate) and the Commission services. The 
Commission and the co-ordinators met four times in 1995 in the Matthaeus-Tax 
Commission Decision 95/279/EC of 12 July 1995 - OJ No L 172 of 22.7.95, p 24 
Committee. The main business of the Committee was the planning and monitoring of the 
1996 exchange and seminar programme and the elaboration of the 1997 programme. 
In 1996 a manual of procedures was adopted by the Commission, codifying the best 
practice accumulated over previous years. This has considerably simplified the 
management of the programme. To focus the efforts of the Commission and the Member 
States, the Committee also adopted performance targets (based on the questionnaires set 
out in the Annexes). Broadly speaking, the targets were to better the 1995 performance, 
which was itself an improvement over 1993-94. A further evaluation form was also 
introduced: the six-month line managers form, the results of which are set out in this 
report. 
3.2 Budget 
For procedural reasons, Budget line B5-3051 covers both the Matthaeus (Customs) and 
the Matthaeus-Tax programme. In 1996 3,200,000 ecu was allocated to this budget line 
and of this the Commission allocated 825,000 ecu to the Matthaeus-Tax programme 
(712,000 in 1995, 600,000 in 1993 and in 1994). Of this, 520,000 ecu was allocated to 
exchanges and 305,000 to seminars. Of this 87 per cent of the exchange budget was spent 
and 92 per cent of the seminar budget. 
The underspend for the seminars is within an acceptable margin, given that budget 
allocated was on the basis of average costs per seminar per participant. The underspend 
for exchanges is disappointing. Six Member States (D, EL, E, NL, P, UK) accounted for 
80 per cent of this underspend. The Commission believes that this was largely due to the 
transition to the de-centralised budget procedure. The results from 1997 will need to be 
examined to see if there is any underlying problem. 
3.2.1 Financial Management 
As mentioned under 2.1.2, management of the exchange budget was fully de-centralised, 
to encourage a more efficient use of budgetary resources by the Member States. Financial 
control procedures were also de-centralised and modernised in 1996, as foreseen in the 
1995 report. 
4. OPENING OF THE PROGRAMME TO ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES 
The Matthaeus-Tax programme was open to the ten Central and Eastern European 
associated countries (and Malta and Cyprus) as part of the Community's commitment3 to 
these countries. This opening in 1996 was a pilot programme financed by the Customs 
2000 programme through the framework for the Matthaeus-Tax programme. A report on 
the 1996 pilot has been prepared by the Commission services. Even though the associated 
Set out in the White Paper on the preparation of the associated countries of Central and Eastern 
Europe for integration into the internal market of the Union, COM(95) 163 final. 
countries' participation is not fully part of the Matthaeus-Tax programme, a synopsis of 
the fuller report is set out here and in the annexes. 
4.1 Exchanges 
22 exchanges took place, most of the associated countries sending one VAT and one 
Excise official to a Member State. Details are set out in Annex A. The associated 
countries, participating at a meeting of the Matthaeus-Tax committee to evaluate their 
participation, expressed a high regard for the exchanges. This is also borne out by the 
positive assessment of their officials. The most important lesson learned was of the 
urgent need to raise the language skills of officials from the associated countries. 
4.2 Seminars 
One official from each of the associated countries was invited to three of the eight 
seminars (two VAT and one excise). The questionnaires completed by the officials show 
that they valued the seminars even more than officials from the Member States. On the 
downside, it was noticeable that the full participation of the officials was hampered by a 
lack of language skills. Further details are set out in Annex B. 
4.3 Conclusion 
Participation in the programme on a pilot basis in 1996 was an essential element in the 
Community strategy for assisting the associated countries in their preparation for 
accession. Thanks to the efforts of the officials themselves and the host Member States 
the experience proved valuable, not least in identifying the tasks ahead. A second and 
third year of the pilot programme will therefore take place in 1997 and 1998. Beyond 
that, the needs of the associated countries are covered by the FISCALIS proposal (see 5.1 
below). 
5. CONCLUSION 
The success of the exchange programme, the biggest part of the programme financially, 
stands out in 1996. The near doubling of the programme was achieved together with a 
significant improvement in quality. Most of the credit for this should go to the officials 
and their hosts. However it is clear that the improvements in management of the 
programme and the continued focus on better preparation and execution of exchanges 
(and the prevalence of more targeted and practical exchanges) permitted this increase in 
activity and quality. For this the efforts of national co-ordinators deserve special mention. 
In contrast, the seminar programme did not repeat the significant improvements made in 
previous years. Even though the impressions of the participants were only slightly less 
positive than in 1995 (and the six months evaluations were in many cases better than for 
1995), some conclusions can be drawn. Ten seminars in a year probably represented too 
great a strain on the Commission services, to whom a large part of the burden falls. There 
was also on occasion a mismatch between the subjects tackled by seminars and the 
participants sent by Member States. There is a role both for academic policy seminars 
and for more practical methodological seminars. 
In future, the Commission needs both to focus resources on a smaller number of seminars 
and to make greater efforts to ensure that the right participants attend. In general however 
the Commission is convinced that the seminar programme has provoked a real debate 
among national tax administrations that was simply non-existent before. 
5.1 FISCALIS 
The experiences of the programme in 1996 played a significant part in influencing the 
drafting of the proposal for the FISCALIS programme (COM (97) 175), due to come into 
force in 1998. In particular the success of the exchange programme and the level of 
demand among national officials influenced the decision to propose a programme which 
could begin to satisfy this demand and need. The FISCALIS proposal also integrates 
Matthaeus-Tax-type activities with wider Community policy on co-operation. Finally, the 
FISCALIS proposals on training and the associated countries were strongly influenced by 
the Matthaeus-Tax experience. The problems encountered on training and language 
training were especially influential. 
10 
Annex A: Exchanges 
In 1996 Member States had the most freedom of choice ever on the host Member State 
for their officials. Comparing the number of officials sent with those received (see tables 
1-3), the UK, NL, S and B were especially popular. D and I were less popular hosts. This 
breakdown may reflect the relative use of vehicular languages in the tax administrations 
of these countries. It would be unfortunate for this development to continue: those 
officials who did go to D gave consistently high ratings for their exchange. The profile of 
exchanged officials (tables 4-8) was largely unchanged. 
Tables 9-11 show that in 1996 efforts to improve the preparation and execution of the 
exchanges (better candidate profiles, more targeted exchanges) had a small positive 
effect, according to the officials themselves. Unexpectedly, their line managers, when 
asked the same questions, were significantly more positive. 
Tables 12-18 give a picture of the broader impact of the exchanges. The figures for 1996 
were broadly more positive than for 1995, although line managers were slightly more 
sceptical of the impact than their officials. Most noteworthy was that 40% of the officials 
(table 14) could foresee administrative changes as a result of the exchange. This figure 
has risen consistently over the programme (although it was even higher for the associated 
countries.) 
Table 1: Breakdown of exchanges in 1996 11 
Home 
Member 
State 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
A 
P 
FIN 
S 
UK 
TOTAL Number of 
officials 
sent 
15 
14 
17 
12 
13 
21 
11 
20 
8 
10 
15 
12 
14 
17 
19 
218 Host Member State 
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK 
Number of officials received 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
20 1 
1 , 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
9 1 
3 
2 
1 
1 
8 4 
1 
1 
2 
15 1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
11 1 
2 
2 
1 
3 
2 
1 
2 
2 
3 
19 4 
2 
1 
13 1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
13 1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
8 1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
2. 
3 
2 
3 
2 
20 2 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
12 2 
11 2 
1 
1 
2 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
13 2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
4 
2 
21 5 
3 
1 
2 
4 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
25 
Table 2: Breakdown of exchanges 1993-96 12 
Home 
Member 
State 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
A 
P 
FIN 
S 
UK 
TOTAL Number of 
officials 
sent 
39 
35 
46 
35 
37 
47 
29 
51 
19 
31 
22 
30 
20 
24 
52 
517 Host Member State 
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK 
Number of officials received 
2 
4 
2 
4 
6 
1 
4 
3 
4 
2 
5 
1 
2 
5 
45 3 
2 
3 
1 
3 
3 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
5 
29 3 
2 
2 
3 
5 
3 
6 
2 
2 
4 
2 
1 
4 
39 5 
2 
3 
2 
2 
2 
4 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
4 
32 3 
2 
2 
2 
5 
1 
4 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
4 
30 3 
3 
3 
5 
5 
2 
7 
2 
3 
1 
5 
2 
8 
49 2 
6 
5 
1 
1 
3 
3 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
33 2 
2 
5 
6 
5 
3 
2 
1 
3 
2 
2 
2 
4 
39 1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
15 2 
4 
3 
4 
5 
4 
3 
5 
1 
3 
2 
3 
4 
6 
49 3 
4 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
18 3 
1 
2 
2 
1 
2 
2 
6 
1 
3 
1 
2 
3 
29 3 
2 
1 
2 
4 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
20 2 
1 
3 
2 
2 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
4 
4 
31 4 
9 
6 
4 
7 
6 
2 
4 
2 
4 
1 
5 
3 
2 
59 
Table 3: Breakdown of exchanges in 1996 - Associated countries 13 
Associated 
country 
Bulgaria 
Czech Rep. 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
TOTAL Number of 
officials 
sent 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
1 
4 
1 
2 
22 Host Member State 
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL 
Number of officials receivec 
2 
2 1 
1 
1 
3 1 
1 
2 1 
1 0 2 
2 1 
1 
1 
3 1 
1 
2 0 1 
1 
2 A P FIN S UK 
0 1 
1 1 
1 1 
1 
2 1 
1 
14 
NB: Indicators marked with an * do not have comparable figures for 1993-94. 
"MS" denotes Member States. "AC" denotes Associated countries. "VAT" denotes 
VAT officials. "Ex" denotes Excise officials. 
Table 4: Gender 
Male 
Female 1996 MS 
69% 
31% 1996 AC 
61% 
39% 1996 VAT 
67% 
33% 1996 Ex 
76% 
24% 1995 MS 
70% 
30% 1993-94 MS 
77% 
23% 
Highest Female %: FIN (71%), EL (58%), S (56%), AC (56%) 
Lowest Female %: B (8%), IRL (9%), A (14%), UK (17%) 
Table 5: Average Age 
1996 MS 
41 1996 AC 
39 1996 VAT 
41 1996 Ex. 
42 1995 MS 
41 1993-94 MS 
39 
Table 6: Work Area 
VAT 
Excise 
Both 1996 MS 
69% 
26% 
5% 1996 AC 
61% 
28% 
11% 1995 
79% 
18% 
3% 1993-94 
80% 
20% 
0% 
Table 7: Grade Code 
Officials with directing responsibilities 
Officials having management and 
controlling responsibilities, possibly 
with some operational duties 
Officials having only operational 
responsibilities but who may take 
decisions on the ground 1996 
MS 
20% 
44% 
37% 1996 
AC 
22% 
39% 
39% 1996 
VAT 
18% 
42% 
40% 1996 
Ex. 
23% 
48% 
29% 1995 
MS 
23% 
48% 
30% 1993-
94 
MS 
24% 
40% 
36% 
Table 8: Why do you believe you were you selected? 
volunteered 
technical knowledge 
linguistic skills 
function in administration 
other 1996 MS 
30% 
23% 
20% 
24% 
3% 1996 AC 
5% 
27% 
30% 
35% 
3% 1995 MS 
28% 
22% 
18% 
26% 
5% 1993-94 MS 
26% 
24% 
25% 
23% 
2% 
Table 9: Did you set specific objectives for your administration, in advance, 
exchange* 15 
for the 
Yes 
No 1996 MS 
82% 
18% 1996 AC 
71% 
29% 1995 MS 
74% 
26% 
Table 10: If yes, were you able to meet these objectives 71 
1996 MS4 
1996 AC 
1995 MS Yes, completely 
27% 
8% 
26% Mostly 
59% 
75% 
61% Partly 
13% 
17% 
9% No, not at all 
0% 
0% 
4% 
Table 11: How closely was the exchange related to your work ?* 
1996 MS5 
1996 AC 
1995 MS Very Closely 36% 
17% 
36% 42% 
56% 
42% 19% 
28% 
18% 3% 
0% 
5% 0% 
0% 
0% not at all 
Table 12: How useful was the experience gained from the exchange ?* 
1996 MS6 
1996 AC 
1995 MS Very Useful 50% 
44% 
50% 40% 
50% 
37% 10% 
6% 
12% 1% 
0% 
1% 0% 
0% 
0% not at all 
Table 13: How much of this experience were you able to apply in your own 
administration ?* 
1996 MS7 
1996 AC 
1995 MS All of it 6% 
6% 
11% 23% 
67% 
26% 48% 
6% 
47% 19% 
17% 
15% 3% 
6% 
1% none of it 
Table 14: As a result of your exchange, can you foresee any administrative 
changes? 
Yes 
No 1996 MS 
40%8 
60% 1996 AC 
53% 
47% 1995 MS 
27% 
73% 1993-94 MS 
12% 
88% 
Line managers reported equivalent figures of 36%, 53% 11% and 0% 
Line managers reported equivalent figures of 42%, 37%, 16%, 5% and 0%. 
Line managers reported equivalent figures of 32%, 36%, 23%, 8% and 2%. 
Line managers reported equivalent figures of 7%, 20%, 35%, 21% and 17%. 
Line managers reported the equivalent figure of 28%. 
16 
Table 15: Did you complete a report of your visit 
in writing?9 
orally? 
both? 
TOTAL 1996 
MS 
59% 
7% 
32% 
98% 1996 AC 
11% 
50% 
39% 
100% 1996 
VAT 
55% 
8% 
34% 
97% 1996 Ex. 
67% 
8% 
23% 
98% 1995 MS 
52% 
11% 
37% 
100% 1993-94 MS 
64% 
10% 
26% 
100% 
Table 16: Was the length of the exchange 
1996 MS 
1996 AC 
1995 MS too long 3% 
0% 
0% 13% 
0% 
7% 61% 
82% 
70% 14% 
12% 
12% 9% 
6% 
10% too short 
Table 17: Overall, how would you rate the value of the exchange for your 
administration ?* 
1996 MS10 
1996 AC 
1995 MS very high 21% 
44% 
28% 48% 
56% 
39% 27% 
0% 
27% 3% 
0% 
6% 1% 
0% 
1% very low 
Table 18: Do you think the programme should be continued? 
Yes, as it is 
Yes, with some changes 
No 1996 MS 
60% 
40% 
0% 1996 AC 
82% 
18% 
0% 1995 MS 
58% 
42% 
0% 1993-94 MS 
26% 
74% 
0% 
In response to the question of whether they would be happy for one of their officials to 
participate again on an exchange, 98% of line managers said yes. 
9 According to the line managers' questionnaire, 17% of these reports were circulated throughout the 
national administration; 37% within the central administration; 15% within the region and 32% 
within the workplace. 
10 Line managers reported equivalent figures of 24%», 43%, 23%, 8% and 3%. 
17 
Annex B: Seminars 
Namur (Belgium) 25-26 April 1996: "Recovery or VAT debts" 
The aim of the seminar was to identify the optimum legal framework for and 
administrative approach to VAT recovery. Delegates compared the various powers 
available to national administrations and different national strategies of recovery 
through prioritising claims. 
The Hague (The Netherlands) 25-26 June and Dublin (Ireland) 26-27 September 1996: 
"The relationship between the taxable person and the administration". 
This large subject was split between two seminars, with broadly the same participants. 
The aim was to identify amongst current practice the ideal balance between the rights 
and obligations of the taxable person. Delegates from the associated countries 
participated for the first time. The first seminar looked at the process of registration, 
accounting and invoicing, the second at audit, collection and appeals. 
Helsinki (Finland) 1-2 July 1996: "Ensuring performance in VAT administrations". 
The aim of the seminar was to identify the key elements of organisation and 
management for ensuring good performance in tax administrations. The seminar looked 
at overall management, including the establishment of objectives, work programmes 
and priorities and the evaluation of individuals and their career development. 
Athens (Greece) 30 September - 2 October 1996: "Control of Excise goods" 
The aim of this seminar was to consider the value of fiscal markers and fiscal stamps for 
excise control. The seminar was conducted with representatives of the trade and with 
participants from the associated countries. The seminar also compared road control and 
stock-taking control procedures. 
Vienna (Austria) 9-11 October 1996: "Heads of CLO" 
This seminar brought together the heads of each Member States' central liaison offices 
(CLOs) to examine recent problems in the management of administrative co-operation 
request and plan for future growth in information exchange. The seminar also examined 
the relationship between CLOs and their wider tax administrations. 
Bad Honnef (Germany) 6-8 November 1996: "Limiting fiscal risk through guarantees 
and technology" 
The aim of the seminar was to evaluate new and existing methods of limiting the fiscal 
risk borne by national admimstrations through the Excise system. The seminar looked at 
the operation of guarantees; the process of recovery and the possible use of satellite 
technology as a control tool. 
18 
Madrid (Spain) 2-3 December 1996: "Invoice control and invoice related fraud" 
The aim of the seminar was to identify the main problems related to invoice control, to 
examine methods used by fraudsters and to examine ways of improving the control of 
invoices. 
Evaluation 
Table 19 shows that participants immediate reaction to the utility of the seminar and the 
extent to which it had met their expectations was slightly down from 1995 (although not 
dramatically: there were more "mostly" than "yes" answers). Conversely tables 20-23 
show that, six months after the event, Member States felt more positive about the 1996 
seminars than they had felt subsequently about the 1995 seminars. The paired seminars 
in Dublin and the Hague appeared initially to have suffered from their conceptual nature 
but this was not borne out on reflection. The level of follow-up indicated by table 23 is 
particularly encouraging. 
19 
Table 19: Participants' evaluation of seminars (all figures are in percentages) 
1. Did the seminar meet (or exceed) your expectations? 
2. Did the seminar cover the subjects you expected it to? 
3. Were there too many presentations? 
4. Was there enough time for discussion? 
5. Was there enough time to talk to delegates from other Member 
States? 
6. Were there enough documents available? 
7. Would you say that overall the seminar was useful to your 
administration? 
8. Was it a good environment for the seminar? 
9. Were the translation facilities satisfactory? Yes 
94 
MS 
74 
67 
19 
70 
71 
85 
74 
82 
69 95 
MS 
67 
72 
4 
60 
63 
63 
72 
87 
56 96 
MS 
51 
58 
12 
53 
61 
72 
61 
84 
71 96 
AC 
64 
71 
0 
57 
57 
63 
78 
100 
83 Mostly 
94 
MS 
22 
25 
4 
16 
16 
7 
17 
15 
17 95 
MS 
27 
23 
2 
21 
21 
16 
21 
12 
21 96 
MS 
39 
34 
5 
20 
22 
16 
30 
12 
19 96 
AC 
33 
29 
12 
26 
27 
26 
22 
0 
14 Partly 
94 
MS 
4 
9 
8 
9 
9 
7 
9 
3 
7 95 
MS 
6 
5 
7 
12 
11 
14 
6 
1 
14 96 
MS 
10 
8 
8 
16 
11 
8 
9 
3 
7 96 
AC 
3 
0 
7 
14 
13 
7 
0 
0 
6 No 
94 
MS 
1 
0 
68 
5 
4 
0 
0 
0 
6 95 
MS 
0 
1 
87 
7 
5 
7 
0 
0 
9 96 
MS 
0 
0 
75 
10 
3 
3 
0 
0 
3 96 
AC 
0 
0 
81 
3 
3 
4 
0 
0 
3 
Above average seminars: Helsinki, Bad Honnef, Athens, Vienna, Madrid 
Below average seminars: Namur, The Hague, Dublin 
Table 20. Did the participants prepare a written report following the seminar? 
I 1996 MS I 1995 MS 
Yes 73% 75% 
No 26% I 25% 
20 
Table 21: As a result of attending the seminar, did your administration gain a 
deeper understanding of the issues discussed? 
1996 
MS 
1995 
MS greater 
understanding 16% 
17% 52% 
50% 23% 
29% 5% 
2% 1% 
1% not a greater 
understanding 
Above average: Bad-Honnef, Athens 
Below Average: Helsinki, Madrid 
Table 22: Overall, would you say that the seminar was useful to your 
administration? 
1996 MS 
1995 MS very useful 22% 
21% 49% 
42% 22% 
33% 5% 
3% 1% 
0% not useful 
Above average: Dublin, Athens, Bad-Honnef 
Below Average: Madrid, Namur 
Table 23: As a result of the seminar, has your administration 
I 1996 MS 1 1995 MS 
changed its working procedures in any way?11 11% 17% 
organised meetings/seminars within your own administration? 33% 28% 
considered other ways of applying the experience gained from the 51% 49% 
seminar? 
organised exchanges in the area covered by the seminar? 8% 18% 
established links with other Member States? 4% 16% 
1 ! Above average: Namur (20%), Vienna (23%), Madrid (38%) 
Below average: Dublin, Athens 
21 
Annex C: The Common training programme 
Table 24: Initial and continuing training in the Member States. 
1996 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
A 
P 
FIN 
S 
UK INITIAL TRAINING 
TOTAL NUMBER OF 
OFFICIALS HAVING 
RECEIVED TRAINING 
165 Ex., 597 VAT 
145 
3,523 
150 VAT 
252 
1,438 Ex., 357 VAT 
61 VAT 
19 VAT, 3,940 Guardia 
13 VAT, 8 Ex. 
246 
270 VAT, 53 Ex. 
340 VAT 
120 VAT, 5 Ex. 
116 
-OFFICIALS TRAINED UNDER 
THE COMMON TRAINING 
PROGRAMME 
762 
145 
3,523 
150 VAT 
252 
1,438 Ex., 357 VAT13 
61 VAT 
19 VAT 
7 VAT, 0 Ex. 
246 
270 VAT, 53 Ex. 
340 VAT 
120 VAT, 5 Ex. 
116 
-CONTINUAL TRAINING ON SUBJECTS OF 
COMMON TRAINING PROGRAMME 
OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE 
3,137 Ex., 2,040 VAT 
about 4,000 
about 53,500 12 
1960 VAT, 4006 Ex. 
10,421 
2,50014 Ex., 7,800 VAT 
400 VAT 
-
90 VAT, 4 Ex. 
about 2,000 
5,366 VAT, 210 Ex.18 
2,430 VAT, 1,655 Ex. 
500 VAT, 100 Ex. 
4,000 
-OFFICIALS HAVING 
RECEIVED TRAINING 
475 Ex., 2,040 VAT 
420 
-
280 VAT 
872 
2,50015Ex. 1,66516VAT) 
311 VAT 
0 VAT, 757 Guardia 
32 VAT, 2 Ex. 
Q17 
1,695 VAT, 173 Ex. 
86 VAT 
180 VAT, 60 Ex. 
337 
-
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 About 3.500 Ex., about 50.000 VAT 
286 officials complete programme, 71 parts of the programme only 
Officials primarily concerned with excise duties. 20,000 Customs officers deal with VAT or Excises from time to time. 
All customs and excise officials receive some continuous training once a year. 
Figures from 1994 
Continuous training not needed, as the content has been covered in previous training 
Officials primarily concerned with Excises. About a further 3,000 Customs officers do so from time to time. 
22 
Annex D: Language training 
Profile of linguistic abilities of exchange participants 
Whilst the ability to communicate on the exchange (table 28) has held up well, it is 
disappointing to see the level of those with basic proficiency and those having language 
training in advance have fallen slightly. This contradiction may have been supported by 
the increasing choice of host Member States where vehicular languages are widely 
spoken. 
Table 25: Could you speak the language of the host country? 
Yes, fluently 
Basic level 
only 
No 1996 MS 
47% 
15% 
38% 1996 AC 
44% 
22% 
33% 1996 VAT 
47% 
12% 
41% 1996 Ex. 
44% 
23% 
33% 1995 MS 
45% 
26% 
29% 1993-94 MS 
66% 
13% 
21% 
Above average language skills of own exchange officials: DK, E, F, NL, FIN 
Below average language skills of own exchange officials: B, IRL, L, A, S 
Table 26: Did you follow a language training course to participate in the Matthaeus-
Tax programme ?* 
Yes 
No 1996 MS 
19% 
81% 1996 AC 
24% 
76% 1996 VAT 
21% 
79% 1996 Ex. 
15% 
85% 1995 MS 
21% 
79% 
Above average language courses by own exchange officials: DK, L, A, FIN, UK 
Below average language courses by own exchange officials: B, D, EL, F, IRL, I, NL 
Table 27: If you did follow a language course, how useful was it to your exchange ?' 
1996 MS 
1996 AC 
1995 MS very useful 45% 
50% 
52% 34% 
25% 
26% 14% 
25% 
4% 2% 
0% 
15% 5% 
0% 
4% not at all useful 
Table 28: To what degree did you feel you were able to communicate in the host 
country ?* 
1996 MS 
1996 AC 
1995 MS very well 56% 
56% 
54% 34% 
33% 
33% 9% 
11% 
12% 1% 
0% 
1% 0% 
0% 
0% not at all 
Above average ability to communicate in host country: B, EL, NL, A 
Below average ability to communicate in host country: DK, I 
23 
Table 29: Overall language training in the Member States 
1996 
English 
French 
German 
Spanish 
Other 
Total 
Average number of officiais 
hours/official 
number of officials 
hours/official 
number of officials 
hours/official 
number of officials 
hours/official 
number of officials 
hours/official 
number of officials 
hours/official B 
124 
67 
146 
74 
35 
56 
29 
77 
38 
65 
372 
69 DK 
30024 D 
1,20025 EL19 
10 
3 
1 
0 
0 
5 
19 
0 E 
45 
40 
1 
12 
1 
55 
0 
0 
0 
0 
47 
40 F20 
106 
35 
0 
0 
2 
47 
3 
70 
2 
47 
113 
37 IRL21 
0 
0 
33 
118 
4 
118 
5 
118 
3 
118 
45 
118 I 
26 
12 
19 
12 
5 
16 
1 
81 
0 
0 
51 
14 L 
3 
350 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 
308 
1 
45 
11 
295 NL22 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 A23 
713 
50 
11 
30 
0 
0 
1 
36 
3 
32 
728 
50 P 
41 
41 
1 
66 
0 
0 
0 
0 
83 FIN 
25 
80 
5 
60 
6 
40 
0 
0 
2 
40 
38 
69 S 
62 
22 
5 
50 
3 
30 
0 
0 
0 
0 
70 
24 UK 
0 
0 
12 
59 
3 
35 
3 
39 
0 
0 
18 
51 
19 Ex. only 
20 VAT only. All customs and excise officials receive language training during their initial training period (English, German, Italian or Spanish, 2 hours weekly). Subsequent training 
is on a job-specific basis, for which no figures are available. 
21 VAT only 
22 No language training necessary: All officials who have international contact are required to speak and read English and German and/or French 
23 VAT only 
24 Estimate, exact figures are not available 
25 Estimate for Customs and Excise administration only. No data available from Lander for VAT. 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 722 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 09 06 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-746-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-29844-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg