WILLEMSTAD - In response to recent controversy regarding alleged long-term repayment arrangements at the Tax Receiver’s Office, several voices within the community have urged that this moment be used not merely to rebut accusations, but to advance a culture of transparency and accountability within the institution.
The discussion follows a corrected press release from the Public Prosecution Service, which inaccurately suggested the existence of tax repayment terms of up to two hundred years. While the Receiver of Taxes, Mr. Alfonso Trona, has publicly refuted these claims, observers note that simply dismissing such allegations does little to address longstanding structural concerns about the functioning of the Tax Receiver’s Office.
Reports from supervisory bodies, including the Stichting Overheids Accountantsbureau (SOAB) and the Board of Financial Supervision (Cft), have previously identified issues such as disorder, arbitrariness, and preferential treatment within the office. The recurrence of these findings highlights the urgent need for improved internal controls and a more open approach to public scrutiny.
Stakeholders maintain that, regardless of the veracity of the recent claim, the current situation presents an opportunity for broader reform. Authorities across government are being called upon to first, publicly acknowledge all shortcomings identified in audits and independent reviews. Second, communicate best practice solutions from reputable, comparable jurisdictions (including the establishment and consistent application of an "integrity checks and balance plan" that stresses the pivotal role of internal audit for ongoing monitoring and control, and external audit for independent validation and transparency of operations).
Third, the receiver’s office needs to provide a concrete, transparent action plan to correct deficiencies.
Lastly, the office needs to report regularly and openly on the progress of these reforms, ensuring accountability at every stage. This incidence would have been the ideal occasion for publicly reporting on what has been done since last year with the relevant action plan(s) for the Receivers organization.
This call for openness is especially pertinent given the substantial powers and discretionary authority vested in the chief receiver, which significantly exceed those of the average civil servant. As such, heightened institutional transparency is not just advisable but necessary to rebuild public trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to good governance.
In the eyes of governance experts and civil society alike, this moment should not be seen as an occasion for defensiveness, but as a chance for the Tax Receiver’s Office to lead by example in promoting transparency, upholding accountability, and restoring confidence in the integrity of public administration.
