Work Instructions Reveal Automated Denial of Debt Relief for Benefits Victims

Executive Summary

Work instructions obtained through WOO requests expose how the Tax Authority systematically classified debt as “unsustainable” (OGS) for childcare benefits victims, effectively blocking access to debt relief programs. At least 20 versions of these instructions prescribe a purely procedural 14-step workflow with no room for individual assessment. MSNP (amicable debt restructuring) rejections were automatically treated as OGS, even when courts later granted statutory debt relief. A September 2022 change in calculation basis revealed that all prior OGS determinations used inflated amounts, requiring review of 2,000+ open cases.

What Happened

The Belastingdienst/Toeslagen maintained detailed work instructions for first and second handlers to establish OGS (OnGecompliceerde Schuld, “uncomplicated debt”). When OGS is established, the debtor is excluded from both amicable (MSNP) and statutory (WSNP) debt restructuring, leaving them with collectable debt indefinitely.

The instructions prescribe a 14-step process where handlers check internal systems for confirming evidence of OGS but never assess individual circumstances, proportionality or whether the original benefit rejection was justified. The critical instruction appears in every version: any MSNP rejection related to childcare benefits must automatically be classified as OGS, even if the MSNP rejection was later overturned or the parent was admitted to WSNP by a court.

On 20 September 2022, the calculation basis was changed from the full assessment amount to the recovery amount (assessment minus credits), revealing that all prior OGS amounts were structurally too high.

Evidence

• Automatic MSNP-to-OGS classification: Every work instruction version contains the identical passage directing handlers to treat MSNP rejections as OGS determinations, even when later reversed or overridden by courts
• No individual assessment: The 14-step process is purely procedural, no step requires evaluation of personal circumstances, proportionality or reasonableness
• Calculation basis error: Pre-September 2022 OGS used full assessment amounts; the correction to recovery amounts required review of 2,000+ open items and all prior lists
• A11 code abuse: In 2011, the A11 rejection letter was “frequently sent instead of an OGS letter,” classifying parents as having unsustainable debt without their knowledge
• Reversal of burden of proof: Standard rejection letters stated parents “should have known” they had no right to benefits, despite having received formal positive determinations
• Unsecured data processing: Personal data (BSN, debts, OGS status) stored on Q-drives and circulated via unencrypted email
• Automated overwriting: SAS Klantbeeld automatically overwrites historical records without audit trail; processing described as “approximately within a week”

Analysis

The work instructions represent institutionalized rights violation at scale. Unlike individual errors, these were prescribed procedures applied daily by dozens of handlers following a standardized template. The automatic MSNP-OGS linkage created a double punishment: parents who were wrongly denied benefits were then also denied debt relief, compounding injustice upon injustice.

The September 2022 basis change is particularly damning as it constitutes an implicit admission that the prior system was structurally flawed. Parents were classified as having “unsustainable” debt based on inflated amounts for years, with no automatic notification or remedy.

The absence of any hardship clause or individual assessment mechanism means the system was designed as a one-way filter: it only looked for evidence confirming OGS, never for evidence contradicting it. This violates the fundamental administrative law principles of due care, proportionality and proper motivation under the Algemene wet bestuursrecht.

Frequently asked questions

What does an OGS determination mean for victims?

An OGS determination (Uncomplicated Debt) excludes the debtor from both amicable and statutory debt restructuring, resulting in a lifelong claimable debt. The determination was dictated by work instructions of the Belastingdienst/Toeslagen, not by a judge. At least 20 versions of those instructions were released under the WOO.

How did the automatic link between MSNP and OGS work?

Every version of the work instruction stipulated that rejected amicable debt restructuring requests were automatically treated as OGS. This applied even when a judge later granted a statutory debt restructuring after all. Parents who had wrongly been stripped of their benefits thus received a double punishment: no debt relief and the label of inexcusable debtor.

What changed in the OGS calculation on 20 September 2022?

As of 20 September 2022 the basis was changed from the assessment amount to the recovery amount. That correction forced more than 2,000 open items to be revised. In doing so the Belastingdienst implicitly acknowledged that all earlier determinations were based on amounts that were too high, without automatic notification or legal remedy.

How were the OGS work instructions structured?

The instructions prescribed a rigid 14-step process in which handlers only searched for confirmation of OGS. No step asked for individual assessment, a proportionality test or a hardship clause. Personal data such as BSN numbers, debt amounts and OGS status moreover circulated on Q-drives and in unencrypted emails.

Read also

• The Butcher as Gatekeeper — why the cabinet keeps the prosecution service out
• Who knew what about the data vault — who knew what about the data vault, and who is still there
• The full data vault timeline — the full timeline, 2019-2026
• 64 million files out of sight — the discovery and the nine-month delay

Sources

• Belastingdienst/Toeslagen, Documenten bij Woo-besluit over werkinstructies OGS (22 zaaknummers, 141 pagina’s)
• Rapport 10, Onderzoek Toeslagenaffaire in het Algemeen Belang, 19 april 2026
• Cross-references: Rapport 1 (WOO-Documenten), Rapport 3 (Wettelijke Kaders), Rapport 4 (Inspectierapport 2021), Rapport 6 (FSV Stuurgroep), Rapport 7 (MKB-Impact)