Staff affair shakes Bern tax administration – stricter rules after years-long dispute
An employee of the Bern tax administration was at the centre of a tax evasion investigation. The case exposed possible special treatment and led to expert reports, a dispute between authorities, and new internal regulations.
Dispute between authorities in Bern: tax administration under pressure after staff affair
The Bern tax administration has been in internal conflict for years after one of its own employees came under scrutiny for tax evasion. SRF reports on the case, which led to expert reports, a power struggle between authorities, and ultimately new internal rules.
The starting point
An employee of the Bernese tax administration ran her own company on the side, in which she was the sole shareholder, sole board member, and managing director. When a transfer of 90,000 francs abroad was made, the authority became suspicious: documents were missing, one was forged. The tax administration then opened proceedings for tax evasion – against its own colleague.
The proceedings against the company ended up before the Canton of Bern's tax appeals commission, a first-instance tax court that operates independently of the administration. The company was rejected there, and the decision became final.
Allegation of special treatment
In parallel, a second proceeding ran, this time against the sole shareholder personally. This was reviewed internally by the tax administration itself and discontinued – without back taxes, without a fine. Constitutional law professor Rainer J. Schweizer called this approach "unusual" in an expert report. He also criticised the fact that the tax administration had internally assessed the final decision of the appeals commission as a "miscarriage of justice" and had not pursued the matter further through legal channels.
According to Schweizer's investigation report, managers from other departments had advocated for the colleague. The tax administration is said to have violated so-called conflict-of-interest obligations. Whilst criminal conduct could not be proven against the employees concerned, the "appearance problem" remained.
A whistleblower is said to have given the cantonal financial audit the crucial tip that the case may not have proceeded in the ordinary manner.
Power struggle between authorities
The financial audit, the canton's superior supervisory authority, wanted to access tax files and question numerous employees of the tax administration. Tax administrator Claudio Fischer and Finance Director Astrid Bärtschi resisted this – they disputed the financial audit's competence in complex tax matters.
"The fact that the case became so emotional was a mistake and should not have happened," says Councillor Bärtschi. The Finance Commission of the cantonal parliament also intervened and commissioned several expert reports on its own account.
New rules as a consequence
Even without criminal consequences for individual persons, the case has had tangible effects on the Bern tax administration. For almost a year now, stricter internal regulations have been in place: tax returns of employees are no longer assessed by colleagues from the same region in which they live or work. In cases of appeals, a department head must be called in; alternatively, a special committee can handle the appeal.
"All measures aim to ensure that the reputation of the tax administration does not suffer," says tax administrator Fischer.
Statement by the tax administration
The Bern tax administration states that the employee was never "finally convicted". Neither back taxes nor fines were owed. Furthermore, the authority emphasises that it has "never failed to implement a final court judgment". Whilst the two proceedings – one against the company, one against the private individual – were thematically interrelated, they must be assessed separately from a legal standpoint.
Source: SRF