SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS The Ombudsman did not agree with the journalist’s view. On the contrary, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that ministerial advice and assistance would often include concrete expert assessments from the Civil Service. With regard to the vast majority of documents, the Ombudsman could not criticise the Ministry’s use of section 24. However, a few of the documents could not be exempted under section 24 as they were to be regarded as external documents. The case also raised a question about the use of the specific confidentiality provision in section 17 of the Tax Administration Act. Thus, it was open to question whether a specific type of information exempted by the Ministry was confidential at all within the meaning of section 17. Finally, the Ombudsman stated that the Ministry’s processing time of 76 working days was much too long. 2015-61. Accounting company not entitled to appeal decision in case concerning reimbursement of expenses – personal bankruptcy of the party entitled to reimbursement An accounting company had provided professional assistance to a client in connection with two tax cases which the client brought before the district court. The client subsequently went personally bankrupt. The accounting company applied to the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT) for reimbursement of expenses for the assistance it had provided to its client. Because the party entitled to reimbursement of expenses (i.e. the client) was personally bankrupt, the application form for reimbursement had been signed by the trustee of the client’s estate in bankruptcy. It was stated on the form that the claim for reimbursement had been assigned to the party which had provided the assistance involved (i.e. the accounting company). However, SKAT refused the application for reimbursement because the application form had not been signed by the party entitled to reimbursement. The accounting company appealed SKAT’s refusal to the Tax Appeals Agency, which rejected the appeal on the grounds that the company was not a party to the case concerning reimbursement of expenses and was therefore not entitled to appeal SKAT’s decision. 149