Federal Governmental Agency: Financial – Dismissed (Belgium, 2021)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A complaint against a Belgian tax agency was dismissed after an accountant claimed they were wrongly labeled as a 'straw man' in tax investigations. The agency argued this label was an opinion, not personal data. This case shows the complexity of defining personal data in legal contexts.
What happened
The Belgian tax agency dismissed a complaint about labeling an accountant as a 'straw man' in tax files.
Who was affected
An accountant who was mentioned in tax investigation files as a 'straw man'.
What the authority found
The Belgian DPA dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the tax agency that the term 'straw man' was an opinion and not personal data under GDPR.
Why this matters
This case highlights the challenges in distinguishing between opinions and personal data, influencing how agencies might handle similar complaints in the future.
GDPR Articles Cited
The complainant is an accountant in Luxembourg. On 18 July 2019 and 9 August 2019, the complainant issued a request for information, access, rectification, and restriction of the processing of their personal data to the Belgian Special Tax Inspectorate ("Directie Algemene Administratie van de Bijzondere Belastinginspectie"), following the mention of their name in various files concerning investigations into tax payers. According to the complainant, the Tax Inspectorate had wrongly referred to them as a 'straw man' ("stroman") for a company alleged to have committed tax evasion. When the Tax Inspectorate rejected the complainant's requests in a letter dated 28 October 2019, the complainant filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA. Among other things, in its submissions, the Tax Inspectorate argued that the words 'straw man' and 'suspected straw man' do not constitute personal data as defined by the GDPR, since they concern an opinion or viewpoint of the Tax Inspectorate regarding the relation of the complainant to the relevant company. The complainant is therefore not entitled to request rectification of this data, or restriction of its processing. Further, the Tax Inspectorate argued that, in accordance with Article 322 §1 of the Income Tax Law 1992 ('wetboek van de inkombelastingen', or 'WIB92') it is entitled to take a position on relevant tax issues to ensure the correct collection of tax. Specifically, this means that it is entitled to state that the complainant is suspected of acting as a 'straw man'. It argued a different reading of Article 322 §1 WIB92 would be contrary to Article 322 §1 WIB92 itself, as well as to a civil servant's freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 ECHR. The Tax Inspectorate also argued that it had indeed satisfied the complainant's right to information under Article 14. This is because Law of 3 August 2012 containing provisions on the processing of personal data by the Tax Inspectorate in connection with its tasks, speci
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for Federal Governmental Agency: Financial in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Federal Governmental Agency: Financial - Belgium (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: