‘Appearance of bias, but tax law department did not violate integrity rules’
The Scientific Integrity Committee ruled that the tax law section did not violate integrity standards. In memos, the section listed a number of benefits for companies such as Netflix and EY, hoping they would sponsor a particular project. However, the benefits listed did not affect the independence of the investigation, the committee said after Follow the Money reported.
The tax law department at the UvA sent so-called benefits memos to streaming service Netflix, consulting firm EY and law firm GPBL, with the intention of making them sponsor the CPT project - a scientific research project within the Faculty of Law into the tax infrastructure in times of non-cash and digital payment transactions in particular.
Research platform Follow the Money saw these memos following a Wob request (now called Woo request) and concluded that the UvA was willing to give these companies tax advice, among other things, disguised as scientific research. It led to parliamentary questions. However, after examining the memos, the Committee for Scientific Integrity (CWI, in Dutch), an independently functioning complaints institute, concluded that there was no such thing and that no integrity rules had been violated by the CPT project leaders.
Multiple interpretations possible
The CWI does acknowledge that the benefits mentioned in the memos may raise questions. Indeed, they are open to multiple interpretations. One of the examples given by the CWI in this context is the phrase frequently used in the memos: “have a voice in academic discussion...”. It might be thought that this refers to the outcomes of the research, but having heard the CPT project leader’s explanation, the committee concludes that this is only about suggestions for research topics.
But this does not alter the fact that this created the appearance of bias, the committee said. The UvA has indicated that it will adopt the CWI's recommendations to better safeguard transparency and integrity in the future.
Scope of the Wob request
It is also striking that the committee’s findings show that not three, but six such memos were sent. However, only three were publicly released after Follow the Money’s Wob request, reason for the research platform to claim that the university is still withholding important documents. However, the UvA refutes this reading “because they were sent to parties with whom no sponsorship agreement was signed”.
Follow the Money’s Wob request related only to “all documents on funding, sponsorship and subsidy provision of the Department of Tax Law,” a UvA spokesperson is quoted as saying. “Those other three memos therefore did not fall within the scope of the Wob request.”
