The Swedish Tax Agency decided to investigate a company’s added value tax declarations and postpone payment of excess input value added tax. When the Swedish Tax Agency closed the cases, more than two years and four months respectively two years and three months had passed since the investigations started. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also finds that cases of such a repayment nature are priority cases. Also, the Swedish Tax Agency has an extensive obligation to investigate, which in cases of this nature can be very time consuming. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman establishes that there have not been longer periods of passivity in the processing and that the drawn-out process has to some degree been due to the fact that the company has not provided the requested documentation. Furthermore, the documentation that the Swedish Tax Agency has needed to examine is extensive. Despite the general urgency requirement that applies in this case, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that the processing times are acceptable.
The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also wishes to refer to the statements that he made after an inspection of the Swedish Tax Agency in the spring of 2023. During the inspection, it was noted that the case management systems that the Swedish Tax Agency uses are designed in such a way that it may be difficult to get an overview of what has happened in an individual case. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises the importance of being able to monitor a case by reading record sheets or similar documents. This is in part important in order for private citizens to safeguard their rights, and in part so that a supervisory authority can review how the case was handled in retrospect.