Own-initiative investigations | 43 In addition, the Agency would increase its effort to inform the authorities about their responsibility for specific sites and self-service solutions on www.borger.dk. (Case Nos. 2019-11 and 2019-22) Review of 300 answers given by customer centre Every day, the customer centre of the Danish Tax Agency answers a large number of questions from citizens, by telephone and in writing. For this reason, the customer centre plays a significant role in citizens’ confidence in the tax authorities. The Ombudsman asked to see 300 questions from citizens and businesses – and the answers given by the customer centre – in chronological order, starting from a random date, in order to assess the guidance given. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was positive: ‘My overall impression from my review of the 300 cases is that the customer centre gives citizens and businesses fast, clear and easy-to-understand answers to their questions. The answers given by the customer centre are generally worded in a friendly, helpful manner’, the Ombudsman stated. When Customs and Tax Administration IT system could not add interest Back in 2013, the IT system ‘Én Skattekonto’ (‘One Tax Account’) was put into operation. Businesses which had a negative balance in their account were liable to pay interest, but from the outset, the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT) was unable to charge businesses interest because of an error in the new IT system. The interest function was not fully functional until after more than two years. After receiving a complaint from a business in 2017, the Ombudsman started digging into the matter. As own-initiative investigations often have a forward-looking focus, the Ombudsman focused on how SKAT had handled the error and what the authorities could learn from the course of events. The Ombudsman concluded that SKAT had been much too slow to provide guidance to businesses on the problem. As the Ombudsman put it when his statement on his investigation was published: ‘(...) the case is also a reminder that if errors of this type do occur, the authorities have a special responsibility to inform affected citizens and businesses about the consequences for them.’ However, the Ombudsman pointed out that some answers conveyed the impression that they were decisions despite the fact that they were intended as a guide only. One of the problems in this situation is that the citizen or business cannot necessarily act, or refrain to act, in reliance on the answer. (See article on pages 8-14). The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that the basis for retrospectively charging the interest which had not been added while the interest function was not working was open to doubt. However, the Ombudsman pointed out that the applicable law on this issue was uncertain, and he therefore found that the question should be resolved by the courts. (Case No. 2019-25) (Case No. 2019-17)