Received an information decision? Respond before your evidential position worsens

1. Distinguish the request from the formal decision

Arrange all complete documents chronologically. A request, reminder and formal information decision are different steps. Record the tax, years, information sought and deadline for each letter. Read the decision’s remedies notice. The name you give a folder does not determine which document has formal consequences: content and status require assessment.

An adviser also needs earlier replies. The inspector may say something was not supplied while you believe you sent everything. Gather the exact files sent and receipt records. A draft reply held by your bookkeeper is not demonstrable supply to the Belastingdienst. The chronology helps identify the actual information dispute.

2. Break down every requested item

For each question record what is sought, why it appears relevant, where the document is and what you already answered. Saying the records are complete may not answer a particular question. Note when a document does not exist or must be obtained from a third party. Have a clear, verifiable explanation assessed.

Request clarification if needed without ignoring the letter. A dispute about the scope of a duty differs from practical inability to deliver a file on time. They may need different approaches. A lawyer can define the legal question while records are preserved and organised as well as possible. Do not delete or change original data to resolve ambiguity retrospectively.

3. Understand the possible burden-of-proof consequences

The Belastingdienst explains that a final information decision can produce a heavier burden of proof when objecting to the related assessment. Showing an amount is probably wrong may then no longer suffice. Have the specific link between decision, obligation and assessment explained. Saying everything the inspector claims is now established is no substitute for that assessment.

The same guidance identifies other situations requiring stronger proof, such as failure to file a required return. An information decision is not the only possible source of evidential difficulties. A penalty, conversely, needs its own evidential assessment. Do not conclude that every later assessment or penalty is automatically correct. Statutory conditions and the actual file remain relevant.

4. Consider correction and objection together

Official guidance describes an opportunity to answer outstanding questions or correct deficiencies, and the option of objecting to the information decision. Establish what is useful and necessary now. A promise to send something later is not necessarily a formal objection. Nor does objection automatically release you from every other obligation. The right combination requires examining the decision and requested information.

Record the decision date and protect the appropriate objection period. If supporting grounds need development, have timely initial submission and possible supplementation assessed. Track corrective deadlines separately. One calendar date for the entire case may fail where objection, supply and another request run together. Agree who performs each task.

5. Separate records and statements carefully

During an investigation, the Belastingdienst may request existing documents and explanations. Government guidance identifies a duty to provide relevant information. For penalties, the Belastingdienst also distinguishes tax information from questions about infringement and culpability. Seek specialist advice if the distinction is unclear. A general invocation of silence is not an appropriate answer to every request for records.

Do not give unverified recollections merely to get rid of the letter quickly. Record what still needs checking and which source supports an answer. A lawyer can help prepare a legally careful response while an accountant reconstructs underlying files and calculations. Clear roles prevent contradictory explanations and show which facts remain uncertain.

6. Agree follow-up and evidence handling

Keep every disclosure with its date, content and receipt evidence. After a reply, check which item remains disputed. A supplemented file may leave disagreement about the original deficiency, so do not assume without confirmation that the decision has disappeared. Ask which formal decision or next action is expected. A subsequent tax assessment has its own issues and possible remedies too.

When obtaining professional help, request an initial assessment of risk, ability to correct and procedure. The engagement may also include discussions with the inspector and later appeal, but this must be agreed clearly. This guide guarantees neither that records can be repaired nor that evidential consequences fall away. Its purpose is timely distinction between facts, information duty, objection and ultimate taxation.

7. Fictional example: bank records collected but not received

Suppose an entrepreneur receives an information decision about bank transactions. They say the bookkeeper already has the statements. Investigation shows only some files were sent to the inspector. The first question is which documents are genuinely missing and whether the alleged deficiency and requested follow-up are described correctly.

The entrepreneur gathers dispatch records and complete files for lawyer and accountant. They separately assess correction, objection period and possible consequences for the later assessment. This fictional example does not guarantee cancellation. It shows why collecting, sending and receiving are different facts, each requiring evidence.

8. Checklist for rapid legal assessment

Put the decision and nearest deadline first and group material by information request. Explain what cannot be supplied and why. This allows the adviser to identify the actual missing step and procedural risk immediately.

• Complete information decision, earlier requests and remedies notice.
• Overview of each requested item, year, file and alleged deficiency.
• Earlier replies with files sent and receipt evidence.
• Available records, missing data and explanations of practical obstacles.
• Penalty questions, other deadlines and agreed lawyer/accountant roles.