114 annual report 2012 2012-12. ‘Revocation’ of binding answer was a decision A man was thinking about moving abroad with his spouse. He owned some shares in a private limited company and wanted to know how much tax he would have to pay on the value of his shares if he did move abroad. He therefore asked SKAT (the Danish Central Customs and Tax Administration) for a binding answer concerning the value of the shares. SKAT gave him a binding answer, and on the basis of this answer the man moved abroad. Later that year, SKAT informed the man that it no longer considered itself bound by the answer. The reason, SKAT said, was that the assumptions on which it had based its binding answer had changed. The man did not agree, and he appealed to the National Income Tax Tribunal, which, however, refused to consider his appeal. Neither SKAT nor the Tribunal deemed SKAT’s letter that it no longer considered itself bound by its binding answer to be a decision, which could be appealed to the Tribunal. In the authorities’ opinion, the letter was solely a ‘service message’. The man’s lawyer complained to the Ombudsman, who stated that in this specific case the letter constituted a decision within the meaning of the Tax Administration Act and the Public Administration Act and that it could consequently be appealed to the National Income Tax Tribunal. However, the Ombudsman did not express his opinion as a criticism of the authorities. The Ombudsman recommended that the National Income Tax Tribunal reopen the case if the complainant still wished to have it tested there. P. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND INTEGRATION The following cases concluded in 2012 were selected for publication in the Annual Report: 2012-4. Appeal filed and processed on the wrong case by industrial injuries authorities The National Board of Industrial Injuries accidentally filed an appeal against a decision on the wrong case. As a result of the error, the appeal was not processed (on the correct case) for almost a year. Instead, both the National Board of Industrial Injuries and the National Social Appeals Board processed the appeal on another person’s case, as if it were a petition to reopen the case.