appendix d: summaries of selected cases The Board stated that all the country’s Property Assessment Appeal Boards had problems with their case processing times, as the boards had experienced a marked increase in the number of appeal cases. Consequently, the boards had decided to process the oldest cases in the country as a whole first. The Ombudsman stated that he could not criticise that the oldest cases in the country were dealt with first. The Ombudsman also mentioned the duty to give notification of the case processing time. In a situation such as that of the Property Assessment Appeal Boards, he could not criticise that the Board only gave notification about its case processing time every 12 months. The information which the Ombudsman received from the Board about the mismatch between the number of appeal cases and the Board’s resources prompted the Ombudsman to open a case on his own initiative vis-à-vis the Ministry of Taxation concerning the case processing times of the country’s 15 property assessment appeal boards. (Case No. 2010-3186-2001) 13-3. Central Customs and Tax Administration’s observance of refund deadline. Payment of interest on late payments A car dealer complained to the Ombudsman that the Central Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT) generally did not observe the deadline of three weeks stipulated by the Act on Motor Vehicle Registration Duty for refunding registration duty on export of cars. The car dealer also complained that SKAT did not pay any interest on registration duty that was refunded too late if the interest sum was less than DKK 200. On the basis of information received from SKAT, the Ombudsman took as his basis that SKAT had not observed the deadline in about one per cent of cases in 2009 and in about three per cent of cases in 2010, and that SKAT had not observed the deadline in about 80 per cent of the car dealer’s cases. On this basis, the Ombudsman criticised SKAT’s non-compliance with the deadline pursuant to the Act on Motor Vehicle Registration Duty and severely criticised SKAT’s non-compliance with the deadline in the complainant’s cases. 121