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)
Date: 1998-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, administrative cooperation, civil servant, tax system, vocational training

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.) 

11 

Table 1: Breakdown of exchanges in 1996 

Host Member  State 

Home 
Member 
State 

Number of 
officials 
sent 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A 

P 

FIN 

S 

UK 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 
IRL 

I 
L 

NL 

A 

P 

FIN 

S 
UK 

15 
14 

17 

12 

13 
21 

11 

20 

8 
10 

15 

12 

14 

17 

19 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

TOTAL 

218 

20 

1 

1 

, 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

9 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

8 

Number of officials  received 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 
2 

1 

1 

4 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 
2 
1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 
3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 
1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 
1 

2 
2 

1 

2. 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 
1 

2 

1 

2 
2 

1 

1 

4 

2 

5 

3 
1 

2 
4 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

15 

11 

19 

13 

13 

8 

20 

12 

11 

13 

21 

25 

12 

Table 2: Breakdown of exchanges 1993-96 

Host Member  State 

Home 
Member 
State 

Number of 
officials 
sent 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 
NL 
A 
P 

FIN 

S 
UK 

39 

35 

46 

35 

37 

47 

29 

51 
19 
31 
22 

30 

20 
24 
52 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A 

P 

FIN 

S 

UK 

3 

2 

3 

1 
3 

3 

2 
1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 
5 

3 
2 

2 

3 

5 
3 

6 
2 

2 

4 

2 

1 
4 

5 

2 

3 

2 
2 

2 
4 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 
4 

3 
2 

2 

2 

5 

1 
4 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 
4 

2 

4 

2 

4 

6 
1 

4 

3 
4 

2 

5 

1 

2 

5 

Number of officials  received 

3 

3 

3 
5 

5 

2 
7 

2 

3 
1 

5 

2 
8 

2 

6 

5 
1 

1 
3 

3 
1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 
1 

2 

2 

5 

6 
5 

3 
2 

1 

3 
2 

2 

2 
4 

1 

1 
2 

1 
2 

1 

1 

1 
1 

2 

1 
1 

2 
4 

3 
4 

5 
4 

3 

5 
1 

3 

2 

3 
4 
6 

3 

4 

1 

1 
1 

2 

1 

1 

2 
1 
1 

3 
1 

2 

2 
1 

2 
2 

6 
1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

4 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 
2 

2 

3 
2 

2 

2 
2 

1 
1 
4 

4 

4 

9 

6 
4 

7 
6 
2 

4 

2 
4 

1 

5 
3 
2 

TOTAL 

517 

45 

29 

39 

32 

30 

49 

33 

39 

15 

49 

18 

29 

20 

31 

59 

Table 3: Breakdown of exchanges in 1996 -  Associated countries 

Host Member  State 

13 

Associated 
country 

Number of 
officials 
sent 

Bulgaria 

Czech Rep. 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Hungary 

Latvia 
Lithuania 

Malta 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovakia 

Slovenia 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 
2 

2 

1 
4 
1 
2 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A 

P 

FIN 

S 

UK 

Number of officials  receivec 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

3 

2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

TOTAL 

22 

2 

3 

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 

having  management 

Officials  with directing responsibilities 
Officials 
and 
controlling 
responsibilities,  possibly 
with some operational duties 
Officials 
responsibilities  but  who  may 
decisions on the ground 

operational 
take 

having  only 

1996 
MS 

1996 
AC 

1996 
VAT 

1996 
Ex. 

1995 
MS 

20% 
44% 

22% 
39% 

18% 
42% 

23% 
48% 

23% 
48% 

1993-
94 
MS 
24% 
40% 

37% 

39% 

40% 

29% 

30% 

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* 

for the 

15 

1996 MS 
82% 
18% 

1996 AC 
71% 
29% 

1995 MS 
74% 
26% 

Yes 
No 

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? 

1996 MS 
40%8 
60% 

1996 AC 
53% 
47% 

1995 MS 
27% 
73% 

1993-94 MS 
12% 
88% 

Yes 
No 

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% 

Table 16: Was the length of the exchange 

1996 Ex. 

1995 MS 

1993-94 MS 

67% 
8% 
23% 
98% 

52% 
11% 
37% 
100% 

64% 
10% 
26% 
100% 

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) 

Yes 

Mostly 

Partly 

No 

94 
MS 

95 
MS 

96 
MS 

96 
AC 

94 
MS 

95 
MS 

96 
MS 

96 
AC 

94 
MS 

95 
MS 

96 
MS 

96 
AC 

94 
MS 

95 
MS 

96 
MS 

96 
AC 

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? 

74 
67 
19 
70 
71 

85 
74 

82 
69 

67 
72 
4 
60 
63 

63 
72 

87 
56 

51 
58 
12 
53 
61 

72 
61 

84 
71 

64 
71 
0 
57 
57 

63 
78 

100 
83 

22 
25 
4 
16 
16 

7 
17 

15 
17 

27 
23 
2 
21 
21 

16 
21 

12 
21 

39 
34 
5 
20 
22 

16 
30 

12 
19 

33 
29 
12 
26 
27 

26 
22 

0 
14 

4 
9 
8 
9 
9 

7 
9 

3 
7 

6 
5 
7 
12 
11 

14 
6 

1 
14 

10 
8 
8 
16 
11 

8 
9 

3 
7 

3 
0 
7 
14 
13 

7 
0 

0 
6 

1 
0 
68 
5 
4 

0 
0 

0 
6 

0 
1 
87 
7 
5 

7 
0 

0 
9 

0 
0 
75 
10 
3 

3 
0 

0 
3 

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 
No 

73% 
26% 

75% 
25% 

I 

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% 

52% 

23% 

5% 

1% 

not 
understanding 

a 

greater 

17% 

50% 

29% 

2% 

1% 

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 

changed its working procedures in any way?11 
organised meetings/seminars within your own administration? 
considered other ways of applying the experience gained from the 
seminar? 
organised exchanges in the area covered by the seminar? 
established links with other Member States? 

11% 
33% 
51% 

8% 
4% 

17% 
28% 
49% 

18% 
16% 

I 1996 MS  1  1995 MS 

1 !  Above average: Namur (20%), Vienna (23%), Madrid (38%) 

Below average: Dublin, Athens 

Annex C: The Common training programme 
Table 24: Initial and continuing training in the Member States. 

1996 

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 

B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
NL 
A 
P 
FIN 
S 
UK 

21 

CONTINUAL TRAINING ON SUBJECTS OF 
COMMON TRAINING PROGRAMME 

OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE 

OFFICIALS HAVING 
RECEIVED TRAINING 

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 

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 
only 
No 

level 

1996 MS 
47% 
15% 

1996 AC 
44% 
22% 

1996 VAT 
47% 
12% 

1996 Ex. 
44% 
23% 

1995 MS 
45% 
26% 

1993-94 MS 
66% 
13% 

38% 

33% 

41% 

33% 

29% 

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 ?* 

1996 MS 
19% 
81% 

1996 AC 
24% 
76% 

1996 VAT 
21% 
79% 

1996 Ex. 
15% 
85% 

1995 MS 
21% 
79% 

Yes 
No 

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 

B 

DK 

D 

English 

number of  officiais 

124 

hours/official 

67 

French 

number of  officials 

146 

hours/official 

German 

number of  officials 

hours/official 

Spanish 

number of  officials 

hours/official 

Other 

number of  officials 

hours/official 

74 

35 

56 

29 

77 

38 

65 

EL19 

10 

3 

1 

0 

0 

5 

E 

45 

40 

1 

12 

1 

55 

0 

0 

0 

0 

F20 

106 

35 

0 

0 

2 

47 

3 

70 

2 

47 

Total 

number of  officials 

372 

30024 

1,20025 

Average 

hours/official 

69 

19 

0 

47 

40 

113 

37 

IRL21 

0 

0 

33 

118 

4 

118 

5 

I 

26 

12 

19 

12 

5 

16 

1 

L 

3 

350 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

118 

81 

308 

3 

118 

45 

118 

0 

0 

51 

14 

1 

45 

11 

295 

NL22 

A23 

P 

FIN 

S 

UK 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

713 

41 

50 

11 

30 

0 

0 

1 

36 

3 

32 

41 

1 

66 

0 

0 

0 

0 

728 

83 

50 

25 

80 

5 

60 

6 

40 

0 

0 

2 

40 

38 

69 

62 

22 

5 

50 

3 

0 

0 

12 

59 

3 

30 

35 

0 

0 

0 

0 

70 

24 

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