- may 6, I got a notice from the tax administration - in my e-Box
- furthermore, There was a, for me, a stranger, the letter to a different company.
It was also sent to me in e-Box.
- 7. may I got a mail that I should disregard the letter, that was not me.
this is the sound of the first sentences in a mail, the nation! have received from a small Danish trader, there seems that the much-praised the safety of using e-Boks got a shard the other day.
He - who did not dare to put themselves out with tax administration and therefore act anonymously (the nation! know the person's name) - wonder, namely, that there can be ports a letter to another recipient in an e-Box.
the tax administration has seen the letter and corresponding below - the concerned trader's letter, continues namely as follows:
- How can this happen?
- And how many have received the letters, they should not have received?
And it will repeat itself, writes the person, who, incidentally, is not the only one who has contacted the nation! around fejlleverede e-Box-letters from the tax administration. And the response the tax administration has sent to inform you also, that there are tens of thousands of examples:
5. may started the tax administration to send information letters out to about 300,000 of the country's small and medium-sized enterprises.
- the Contents of the letters were completely identical and only general information on the possibility to get an interest-free loan equivalent to vat, which the companies have deposited in march.
the Letters were sent out in lots of 50,000 at a time.
We discovered quickly however, that approximately 42.000 of the letters in the first round of shipments was addressed to recipients with a wrong header on.
- There is a human and annoying error which was fixed immediately, and which therefore appeared in the next round of shipments.
- It is important to stress that there was only talk about the header, which was wrong – and that there is no shared specific information on the individual company, " explains vice president of tax administration Peter Thorgaard and elaborates:
- It is of course regrettable, and immediately after we became aware of the error, we sent, therefore, also the letters, which we regret, for the companies that were affected by the error.
- at the same time, got the companies in question quickly the right letter with their letterhead on.
- We put in addition, an indicative text on the digital service Professions, in which we stated that the error had happened - but also that we both regretted, and that the bug was fixed again.
- We are of course the unfortunate of the error, and therefore we contacted also with the same the companies concerned, says underdirektøren.
- the Error meant that a company's name is not consistent with the CVR-no., that formed the basis of the firms that received the letter.
metaphorically, one can say that two rows in a spreadsheet forskubbede themselves, and so there was no longer a match between the name and cvr.-no.
- A company received a letter addressed to another company, but the actual wording in the letters were quite similar, writes the tax administration, but what do you say?