Proposition 50K0176

Projet de loi modifiant divers codes fiscaux, en ce qui concerne le pourvoi en cassation et la représentation de l'Etat devant les cours et tribunaux.

General information ¶

Author

CD&V Yves Leterme

Submission date

Oct. 15, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax tax inspection tax collection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN

Abstained from voting

N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

First, I would like to refer to the written report. Not only I, but everyone present here may have been impressed by the plea that our group leader Yves Leterme held here in connection with reporting. He has effectively established that members of the majority are increasingly inclined to refer to the written report and still hardly give oral explanations. Therefore, I will give myself the good example and give explanations in the report.

Colleagues, your committee discussed this bill during the meetings of 3 and 10 July. This is a proposal by Mr. Leterme. However, I must now remain in my role as a reporter, otherwise I would paraphrase him and say "the excellent proposal of my excellent colleague." You know how he spoke in praiseful words about me.

Mr. Leterme, do you ask the word for a personal fact?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Mr. Pieters that the text of the bill and the designation speak for themselves.

In this way we can continue for a moment. Their

This bill has no budgetary impact. This proposal aims to correct a provision incorporated by the Act of 15 March 1999 on the Solution of Tax Disputes into various tax codes. The relevant provision sets out the conditions to be met by cassation facilities in tax matters. The first sentence almost literally translates the text of Article 1080 of the Judicial Code. However, that phrase is superfluous and incorrectly gives the impression that it is a special law that deviates from the common procedure law. The proposal aims to abolish that provision in the aforementioned articles.

In the general discussion, the Minister of Finance said that he has no objections to the proposed amendment. He also takes the opportunity to suggest that Article 379, repealed by the Act of 15 March 1999, be restored in the next reading. The text reads as follows: "In the case of disputes concerning the application of a tax law, appearance in person on behalf of the State may be made by any official of a tax administration." The laws of 15 and 23 March 1999 reforming the tax procedure gave the courts of first instance the power to decide in first instance on disputes relating to income tax.

Parliamentary preparation shows that the employer wanted to work on a uniform management of the taxation and the disputes in which the taxation officer could defend his case before the court of first instance. In the jurisprudence, however, there has been much criticism of the fact that in the context of tax disputes the State may appear in person before the court through one of its officials who then acts as an organ.

All this leads to unfavorable judgments for the State. In accordance with this jurisprudence and in accordance with the judgments in question, the State is represented as a single legal entity by its competent authorities, in this case the ministers. An undertaking may be represented as an ordinary legal entity by a person whom it itself designates within its own structure. On the other hand, the ministers are the only ones authorized to represent the State in person before the courts of the judicial system. This requires the Minister to appear in person. This requirement makes it impossible to act rationally and effectively and is also incompatible with the objective of the reform, which aims to strengthen the sense of responsibility of the taxation officer. Therefore, the Minister proposes to simplify the procedure before the court of first instance by legally granting the officials of the tax administration the status of State body as provided for in the Judicial Code. For complex files, a lawyer would still be engaged.

Mr Van Hoorebeke made a number of positive comments, but also raised a number of questions. It is positive, in its view, that this measure can enhance the motivation of the official authorised to handle the file until the end of the procedure. The member had 4 comments. According to the member, the training required for this purpose threatens to further complicate the task package of some officials. Are the participants prepared to take such training? There is a risk that the official will have to miss a number of tasks in order to focus on drafting conclusions and following the meetings. This can lead to delays in the handling of administrative disputes. When defending files before the court, the taxable official may have to make a number of moves and will lose a lot of time. The last observation was of a principled nature. Before the court, the taxation officer acts as the counterparty. On the administrative level, however, the official is considered to handle the file in question in an impartial manner. Will this situation not lead to a change in attitude within the tax administration? However, the administration concerned may tend to consider the latter as a counterparty when handling the files of the taxable person, rather than weighing the various elements in charge and in discharge against each other.

After the general discussion, the article-based discussion took place. Before the final vote, the Legal Service sent a note to the committee on retroactive effect that could affect ongoing judicial proceedings. For the discussion of this note and its implications, I refer to the written report.

The entire amended bill is adopted unchanged by 9 votes and 3 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his clear report, in which he addressed a number of sensitive points concerning the Government amendment submitted at the fallout and which was discussed in the Committee on Finance.

Mr. Minister, I do not apologize for setting out the following method. The bill proposed by colleague Leterme to amend several tax codes, as regards the provisions in Cassation, should in principle not lead to a lengthy discussion. During the oral questions, however, you announced that you would submit an amendment. I will first outline the history of this amendment.

Mr. Minister, this morning you were questioned by myself and two other colleagues regarding the blocking of the tax courts and the courts of first instance, which was a result of a circular letter from the secretary-general of your department. According to this circular letter, tax officials were allowed to advocate and represent the State before the tax courts or the tax chambers in the courts of first instance. As a result, there was resistance among the lawyers. Three judgments were followed by the courts of first instance of Antwerp, Gent and Leuven. The Court of Bergen has made the opposite judgment. According to the courts of Antwerp, Gent and Leuven, tax officials do not have the power to advocate before the tax courts. Their argument was double. First, the tax legislation does not contain any special provision concerning the appearance of the State before the tax courts, so the general rules of the Judicial Code apply. Secondly, according to Article 440 of the Judicial Code, the lawyer’s profession has a plea monopoly.

Mr. Minister, in the subsequent discussion you referred to the history of the legislation on the reform of the tax procedure. Collega Pieters quoted the laws of 15 and 23 March 1999. This problem was already discussed at that time. According to the original text, tax officials were allowed to advocate before the tax courts. However, in a study that you received from the Brussels Bureau at the time, it was stated that this was not necessary, because according to the theory of the body, the Minister of Finance can be represented before the courts by one of his officials.

On the basis of these considerations, this element was not included in the legislation on the reform of the tax procedure. This has caused controversy within the judiciary. Consequently — and this is the most important thing — the tax courts were blocked. It was not known whether the judgments would be appealed or not.

Mr. Minister, during the debate following the oral questions of this morning, you announced that you would use the bill of colleague Leterme as a capstone for an amendment. The amendment may not be entirely appropriate — which is not bad, because I have worked on it myself — but it may lead to the solution of the acute problem. As I said in the committee, it is not good for tax courts to be blocked again. We have clearly opted for the new tax procedure so that tax disputes could be resolved as soon as possible. In this way, the citizen who has submitted an objection will quickly know his fiscal situation. Sometimes we have to wait for years now.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the blocking of tax courts was indeed not a good thing.

I also called for a quick solution. For example, you could submit an amendment, whatever you did. You could also say that the Belgian State would in the future be represented by a lawyer specializing in tax matters. You have opted for the fastest process that may be most obvious to you. The reasons underlying your amendment have been defended by you and I can respond in part. You have chosen to allow tax officials to appeal before the tax court and represent the Belgian State with retroactive effect from 1 April 2001. I have asked a number of critical questions. I wish to repeat it. The resistance I raised then, I must continue today. I do not want to be an advocate of the bullies and the advocate monopoly. However, the lawyer’s advocacy monopoly is now already broken in labour disputes and for example for the seizure judge in the procedure of collective debt settlement, where the OCMWs can act themselves. This discussion fits into a broader context. At the same time, we must ask ourselves what role should the lawyer’s profession and the bars still play in the process to the courts and courts? Their

Today, the advocacy monopoly could be broken by tax officials. In the near future, the government of the Flemish Region may ask the same for the many disputes concerning public procurement. It could also delegate its specialized officials to the courts. I would therefore like to conduct the debate on breaking the pledge monopoly and will not take a position today. Before a final position can be adopted, a thorough debate should be organised in which the various actors are heard.

I have four concerns about breaking the plea monopoly.

First, the intervention of tax officials before the courts undermines the independence and neutrality demanded by a party advocating a case before the court. It was a deontological rule that a lawyer should never advocate for his own case or a case for a close family member, because a lawyer should always be able to maintain sufficient distance and neutrality with regard to the party whose case he or she represents. In my opinion, a certain degree of independence is required to handle a file. However, a tax official could start advocating his own case. You want an official to represent his file from a to z, from the objection to the judgment before the court. That tax official is no longer independent, but becomes a directly involved party, thereby losing its neutrality. I believe that a tax official should serve the public interest. He must examine the pro and contra arguments and make responsible decisions in the context of the general public interest.

The danger exists that if a civil servant begins to defend a file, it actually becomes his or her affair in which he or she tries to match as much as possible. That is not a good starting point. This violates the required independence and neutrality.

Mr. Leterme, I am glad that you are present again, because I had already mentioned your good bill that we fully support for the rest. It is of course a great honour for you that the government has used your bill to add a not insignificant amendment. The amendment itself is of course bad, which I will return to later.

Mr. Minister, my second argument is that in this way one goes to disregard a specialized profession by the government. Again, I do not speak for or against the legal profession. It is obvious that our legislator, our rule of law, has opted for the introduction of the lawyer’s profession as a specialized profession that will defend certain interests before the courts and courts. The increasing breach of the monopoly on advocacy, as provided for in Article 440 of the Judicial Code, de facto also undermines the specialization of the profession. This can be done for other professions. However, this does not seem to be a good starting point. It is a specialized profession that is accompanied by strict professional secrecy, independent preparation and extensive professional knowledge. The familiarity with the procedure is so great that the lawyer should guarantee a good representation in the process. Mr. Minister, although you have announced that the tax officials who will be given the power of representation before the court will also receive training in the procedure so that they become familiar with the plots of the courts and courts, I think this is not a good practice. One can never ⁇ that knowledge, professional secrecy and confidentiality that is in force within the legal profession if one gives tax officials the power to advocate.

Let me come to my last argument. Mr. Minister, I cannot follow your motivation if you say that this would bring cost savings. You say that we should use less of the lawyer’s profession and therefore pay less honorary wages. You have said that you will still use a lawyer for the more specialized cases. In any case, I wonder if it is efficient if a tax official, for example, must be present before the tax court at 9 o’clock and there must wait until 11 or 12 o’clock before he can defend his case. This could only lead to further delays in the settlement of tax disputes, while the reform of the tax procedure aimed just the opposite. An official who sits there for two or three hours and then has to return to his office before he can take another file into his hand will probably not be a demonstration of efficiency. In the long run, this would lead to a heavier tax instead of cost savings.

From the trade union circles of tax officials, I have heard the signal that this also creates an aggravation of the status of the official.

The accountability of the competent official – with which I agree since it gives rise to greater motivation – indeed means an aggravation of the statute. This means that he will also be able to make professional mistakes, something for which, for example, the lawyer is insured and the tax official is not.

It’s important – I hope some can endorse this concern – that a quick solution to the current blocking of tax courts will come. Furthermore, the debate on breaking the plea monopoly should be broader and involve various actors. I suggest that we hear in this hearing, among other things, the views of the representatives of the Balais.

This amendment was "and steemelings" added to the bill. This bill was announced in the morning and integrated here in the afternoon. I suggest that the State Council be consulted on this matter. I have no problem with the fact that a quick solution is being sought for the unblocking of the tax courts. However, this amendment has a larger scope than we can estimate today. In my opinion, if this is approved, another public service will submit a bill, draft law or amendment to request representation for that particular branch as well.

Mr. Speaker, following the discussion on Article 3, I would like to briefly explain my question on a State Council opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the majority, of which you now and then seek to be the servant, to read as an introduction from an opinion-giving article that appeared earlier this week and that you will go straight to the heart from your concern for the prestige of this Chamber. It is an article by Rolf Falter that appeared on Monday 16 July 2001 in De Standaard under the title "Bodemplaat". In French, bottom plate means the level below which one does not descend.

I quote Mr. Falter: “It is unimaginable what appears to be in the cabinets of the Chamber at the moment when one empty it just before the holiday. The plenary session of the country's most important parliament" — Mr. Falter has knowledge of matters — "debates this week on the NMBS, on municipal finances, on police reform, on the anonymous witnesses and half a dozen smaller judicial laws" — as if judicial laws ever were different — "on bankruptcy laws, on cervical cancer and organ transplants, and on a bill on health care that" — Mrs. D'Hondt and Mrs. Schauvliege, Mr. Brouns, Vandeurzen and Goutry — "was submitted by the government too late" — an objective observation — "and at the first discussion by the same government was reduced by two-thirds".

I will remove a few passages from the article. I quote from a following paragraph: “Legislative power is irrelevant when the laws themselves become increasingly irrelevant. This evolution is extremely dangerous, but real. Too many laws, quickly and flatteringly flanked together on cabinets and then chased with the carwats by the Parliament, provide a legislative arsenal that no one knows yet, of which ⁇ half is enforceable and not yet a quarter enforceable. Law, like the courts and lawyers, has become the essence of the problem, rather than an element of solution.” Then the article becomes very heavy. "Who would then repeat the burst pressed by the throat of 200 full-time (and thus docile) politicians?"

I quote from the last paragraph: “Certainly the Chamber and the Senate — despite all the well-intentioned and useful modernizations of a Herman De Croo, for example — have let themselves lose the last piece of self-respect, ⁇ under this government. This executive power permits itself everything and can do so. Ministers who do not appear, texts that are submitted too late, permanent karwat states, the dismantling of the State Council and the Court of Auditors and above all: lies, manifest lies. Ministers have always been allowed to seek escapes in parliaments, debit vagues, and distort truths, but the relentless punishment of 'lying before the Commons' has always been the bottom floor on which every parliament rests. In Belgium, this soil plate is gone.” End of quote. In the last week of this session time, I think it is important to give you this objective observation of how the current majority deals with our institutions and in particular with the Chamber and Senate.

In fact, the agenda we discuss today is an illustration of this. Collega Van Hoorebeke has already referred to the fact that an amendment was pushed "and steamlessly" into another bill, although this amendment nevertheless requires a broader and fundamental parliamentary discussion because it concerns a number of important principles of our rule of law. This is then separate from the embarrassment in which you bring me by the fact that a bill of mine, which aims to bring simplification and uniformity into tax codes, is flattered by the initiative of the government.

I would like to make a few comments on this. First, I would like to refer to the House’s assessment of the draft laws relating to the settlement of disputes in tax matters at the beginning of 1999. Let me quote from the report on the bicameral bill draft number 1341. At some point in the discussion, the Government interprets its position on whether or not officials of the Ministry of Finance can act on behalf of the Belgian State, I quote: "In the framework of the new procedure, on the other hand, the administration will be able to follow up the disputed file at the court of first instance and appeal, once the court has made a decision. In addition, the administration reserves the right to bring the dispute before the Court of Cassation. Furthermore, the Minister confirms the omission of the provision of Article 7 of the Bill on the judicial structure in tax matters as adopted by the Chamber, which provides that the Minister of Finance may be represented by an official appointed by him before the court of first instance. He declares that that provision is in fact meaningless because, in accordance with the rule of law confirmed by the jurisprudence and the Court of Cassation, every official who is duly authorised by the competent authority to represent the State is in fact an organ of the State. The official speaks on behalf of the state. Finally, the Minister confirms that from now on, a case of cassation can be brought without requiring the involvement of a lawyer at the Court of Cassation (...) In addition, the matter is to facilitate the access of the taxable person to all levels of judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the possibility for the administration of direct taxes to establish, without resorting to a lawyer, provision in cassation is extended by the draft to the different types of taxes”.

To this end, the quotation from the spring 1999 work report. This indicates that we have also been dealing with the problem during the previous legislature.

Regarding the possibility of inserting the government amendment into your servant’s proposal, namely breaking the lawyer’s advocacy monopoly by letting officials advocate in tax matters, I would like to raise two objections. These objections come both from the side of the lawyer’s profession as the interested party, as well as from the side of the officials. I will not comment on the objections of the first party, since they were subsequently expressed by colleague Van Hoorebeke excellently.

The officials themselves raise a number of objections. These objections are sufficient to say that you are imposing a measure called by the people on the ground a bad measure that will jeopardize the proper functioning of the tax services.

Mr. Minister, with permission, after repeatedly hearing you in the Committee on Finance on the fight against tax fraud and the settlement of tax disputes, I have the firm impression — and you will have to refute it in your replica — that you would rather that the administration in its work be complicated in order to thus become restrained officials. After all, you instruct them to subsequently start defending their offence before the court — with a loss of time and energy — without adding value to their profession. Consequently, they will be more lax when setting out their attacks.

The tax administration itself raises four arguments against the amendment you submitted to the bill. First, tax officials are not expected to have the typical training to handle the procedure before a court in their fingers. In the case of enlargement, a very large proportion of officials do not have the legal training that this implies and ⁇ do not have the experience.

Second, the officials rightly argue that despite your blatant statements, despite the appointment of a government commissioner to combat tax fraud, despite the Court of Auditors’ inspection of the tax administrations, it has still not been achieved to expand the employment of staff. There is still a shortage of staff and time today, and therefore it is counterproductive of this limited corps to assume that they would free time for this task.

Third, in execution, you actually make a distinction between different taxation officers. One time you will be able to engage a lawyer because you leave the possibility open; the other time you cannot. Well, this becomes a pressure agent that can be used against the individual taxation officer.

That individual taxation officer may be pressured not to substantiate his attack too strongly or not to establish a particular attack, because he knows that at some point he will be placed without weapons.

A fourth argument is, of course, that after the entry period and the number of cases already brought before the court, the outcome is ⁇ negative. Almost all officials are scared of the situation in which they are placed, namely lack of knowledge of the procedure, loss of time and all kinds of difficulties they face when they must effectively file a case before the courts on behalf of the Belgian State. This is a whole set of objections. You smile, but I think the people with more field knowledge who should do the work effectively and not if you ex cathedra proclaim great prophecies about the functioning of the tax administration, pertinent well know the state and are strongly motivated. We must listen to the people with field knowledge and feel that the proposed measure is negative. Their

Mr. Minister, I have a concrete question in this regard. Furthermore, it also allows you to estimate the concrete effects on the employability of the tax administration in the coming months, when it would appear that your measures would become reality and legal retroactively from 1 April 2001. Can you tell us how many tax disputes are pending today at the tax chambers? Can you tell us this in your replica? This is a very concrete question.

Then I come to the other side, especially the lawyer’s profession. I will not repeat every argument, but we support the arguments that were raised and presumably widespread, though in vain, by the Association of Flemish Balies. She warns that unreasonable government amendments to the competence of tax officials will lead to reduced efficiency, which will be a bad thing. Mr. Van Hoorebeke has already developed a number of things and I will repeat this in brief. Normally, when handling a tax file, one can assume that there is a certain degree of independence and neutrality. That independence and neutrality cannot be presumed to be present among tax officials who must justify their attack before a court. By breaking the advocacy monopoly of the lawyers, the government, the government, this majority including some important masters from this House, lacks a specialized profession like that of the law profession. This is a blow to those people. Furthermore, this will not be an efficient measure. Their

The cost savings that will be achieved by not resorting to lawyers will be lost by the huge loss of time and the loss of employability of people, specialized taxation officers, on concrete files. We have already found, for example, in accordance with the review by the Court of Auditors, that a number of important offices already have a shortage of staff and can no longer carry out the normal control. If taxation officials are required to spend hours and hours defending files before courts, you will make these people even less employable. Finally, the question remains whether the representatives of the staff will let this go over. The working conditions are suddenly changing. The staff is now expected to have certain knowledge that previously was not required, including the practice of judicial procedural law before the courts. In addition, a special responsibility and responsibility is imposed on these officials.

This is a protection that exists with lawyers. We are therefore very explicitly opposed to this measure, which is included in a bill that, by the way, removes the support of my group. Because of this fact and because of the importance of the above-mentioned problem, we will therefore support colleague Van Hoorebeke’s request to invoke the Council of State’s opinion on the admissibility of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is a ⁇ interesting debate because it is not new and it demonstrates that there can be a very large number of lobbies in our country and that some sometimes show themselves strongly in this assembly; we have already talked about municipalists. Here is another debate that concerns a category of lawyers, not all members of the bar, but a category of lawyers working on the subscription to the Ministry of Finance.

The first observation. The decision to transfer this competence to defend the interests of the Ministry of Finance before the courts of lawyers to the officers of the department was taken by the General Directorate of one of the directions of the tax administrations, transmitted to all the officials; it was also approved on the occasion of my very numerous visits to the services. When one opposes a decision of the minister to the situation, to people on the ground, one must realize that it is a decision taken by the administration itself. Let us try not to confuse genders; it is not a measure imposed but a measure adopted very clearly internally within the administration.

The second element. This is a measure that is not taken suddenly, on the occasion of an amendment. It has already been debated on the occasion of discussions in Parliament on the new tax procedure, previous legislation; it has been debated when Mr. Zenner presented his plan for a new tax culture: the new proposal was formally there. As mentioned by Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I was questioned the same morning of the committee debates and I announced that an amendment would come in the afternoon; we discussed it in the committee in the afternoon. by

I can understand that it takes much more time, even more years to realize the content of a debate, but we have rarely seen a discussion develop so long.

The first element is a measure taken internally by the administration. The second element is a measure announced for a long time, confirmed in committee and which, I believed, had received the approval of parliament when Mr. Zenner came to present his plan as a government commissioner. No one has made a reservation on this idea of reserving the department’s means of defence for cases of major tax fraud, organized crime, rather than having a waste of funds on occasion of all these cases before the new chambers that are the tax chambers of the courts of first instance.

The third observation. I hear repeatedly about the monopoly of the bar. Let us not be mistaken: the general principle is that everyone can defend himself in court. There is nevertheless no bar monopoly that would prohibit a citizen from defending himself before courts and courts. This is a first element.

Second element, for legal persons, the Judicial Code itself provides in its article 703 the theory of the organ. It happens that there is sometimes a contradiction in the argument used by the bar in relation to the public sector. When the draft law on the tax procedure was debated, Mr Balthus, a representative of the Brussels Bar, came before the Senate Finance Committee to explain even that an amendment like the one still debated today was not necessary, that the State could be represented before the courts by any official. At that time, the Minister who preceded me also confirmed it; Mr. Leterme referred to it. by

Once it comes to implementing this principle, a number of bar members take an entirely opposite attitude and demand a voluntary appearance in cases opposing the state to taxpayers to require that the state be represented by a lawyer. What I have therefore proposed in a committee is to put an end to this absurd debate where, when it comes to defending the principle, one comes to plead in parliament about the possibility for the State to be represented by its own officials; and then, in every concrete file, one will plead the opposite, thus blocking the situation of a very large number of procedures. I do not have the exact number at this time of the number of cases introduced since April 1st; at the end of April there were a few dozen, very little therefore compared to the 55,000 who could have gone before the courts and courts. It is quite logical that taxpayers still prefer to negotiate with the administration wherever possible. Today, there are ⁇ a greater number of documents introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm my intention to effectively entrust the department officers with the defense of cases before the court of first instance. As I recalled in the committee, it is in no way a matter of removing all tax matters from the hands of the bar, but rather of concentrating, in the hands of specialized lawyers, the matters for which the Parliament itself desires special attention, that is, the matters of major tax fraud, the matters of organized crime to which we wish to grant in particular the means of struggle reserved to the department. by

In conclusion, when it comes to appointing specialized lawyers responsible for defending the interests of the State in cases of major tax fraud, it is not always easy to find, among the lawyers available in Belgium, specialists in tax matters who are not already the counsel of one of the opposing parties. by

It is necessary to know whether one wishes, in order to defend a number of interests strongly promoted by one or the other lobby, to block the move of the State that wants to reserve its means of action to fight against tax fraud or if one wishes to follow the proposal that I have made to you in commission, namely to mobilize funds for this type of large fraud. It is a choice. I can understand that there are groups today who do not want to go that way. At least the debate will be clear. Article 440 of the Judicial Code is very clear: exceptions may be provided by law. This is already provided by a number of articles of the Judicial Code, there is no doubt as to the constitutional and legal basis of the text that is currently under consideration. by

I fear unfortunately, but this will probably not be the first time in our country, that the manoeuvre that today consists in requesting a return of a text to the State Council is simply aimed at wasting at least 2 to 3 months in the face of the firm will of the government and of the majority to reserve the means of action to the fight against the large tax fraud. This was stated in the recent budget control. If several groups do not want to support this approach to combat large tax fraud, it is their choice, it is not mine.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.