Abstract
The goal of this paper is to provide a comparative account of tax administration training systems in V4 countries. We also compare their structure to basic training principles, such as those set out by the Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations. Because of limited data availability we concentrated on basic characteristics, not on performance indicators. The goal is not only a simple comparative analysis, but also to search for any obvious lapses in good international practice, to try to assess to what extent the organisation of training may account for the relatively poor tax administration system results. The data show clearly that, in the V4 region, the content of the tax administration training system aims to follow good international practice, specified by the Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations. The training systems are similar and offer almost fully compulsory vocational training, and good possibilities for specialised training. All four countries have specialist institutions for tax administration training. The most visible gap is the very limited link between tax administration training and university level training in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Introduction
Well organised training is one of the core pre-conditions for the effective management of human resources, and it influences the overall performance of all complex organisations. In this paper we study the training systems for tax officials in the Visegrad 4 (V4) countries – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
International comparisons suggest that the tax systems in all of the V4 countries perform relatively poorly. For example, their administrative costs are high. Amongst OECD countries in 2013, the Polish tax administration was the second most expensive, Slovakia’s was third, the Czech Republic’s was fourth and Hungary’s was seventh (OECD, 2015). For the Czech Republic, where tax administration research is most developed, several studies have focussed on this problem (Jílkova, Pavel and Slavíková, 2009; Pavel and Vítek, 2015; Pudil et al., 2004; Vítek, 2008; Vítek and Pavel, 2008; Vítek et al., 2002, 2004; Vitková and Vitek, 2002). For other V4 countries, Orviska and Hudson (2003) should be noted, although they deal with the topic only indirectly, from the viewpoint of tax evasion, and also Nemec et al. (2015).
These studies identified several factors that may influence costs, including simplifying the tax system, and improving its technical efficiency. But there are no current plans in the V4 region to simplify the system. On technical efficiency existing papers propose changes in such areas as the size of tax offices, time-consuming agendas, the functional positions of employees, the structure of expenditures, the quality of tax control and the qualifications and motivation of staff. A potentially significant step forward would be to create a “customer friendly” tax administration system, providing tax payers with better information and increasing their trust in the tax system.
However, there is no study dealing directly with the analysis of the training of tax officials in V4 countries. Indeed there is little international research on this topic. So the goal of this paper is to provide a comparative account of tax administration training systems in V4 countries. We also compare their structure to basic training principles, such as those set out by the Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations. We concentrate on basic characteristics, not on performance indicators.
We contacted all four tax administrations asking for information about their training systems. This information was processed and is summarised in the first part of this paper. The data refer to 2016. We do not cover the very recent changes in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, connected to the adoption of new Civil Service Laws and their impact on training.
Brief description of the training systems for tax officials in V4 countries
Czech Republic
The training system for Czech tax officials has two core levels – vocational training and specialised training. The responsible body is the Fiscal Administration and its Department of Education.
Vocational training has two main forms – adaptation vocational training and specialised vocational training (VVN). Specialised training includes: (a) professional training; (b) managerial training; (c) language training; (d) highly specialised training; and (e) training in areas prescribed by the Government or the General Director.
The adaptation vocational training is compulsory for all new employees, starts immediately after joining the service, and normally takes 3 months. The goal is to provide employees with sufficient knowledge to work in the Fiscal Administration.
The specialised adaptation training is compulsory for all newly recruited specialised staff, except those with university degrees from pre-defined programmes. It should be finished within 12 months of recruitment. It has an e-learning form with a multiple choice test at the end. Its goals are to provide employees with a knowledge of the Czech legal and public administration systems, the European Union (EU) and Czech EU membership, and to instil basic communication skills.
The specialised professional training has three levels. The first compulsory level is delivered during the first 12 months of employment. The second level (OK courses) is voluntary. Courses can be taken only after the first year of employment, based on specific needs. The third level (OSK courses) is also voluntary and such courses can be taken after passing second level courses, normally after a minimum of 3 years employment. Extra options are voluntary courses of C, D, E, F, G, H and I type, dealing with concrete specialised topics. Attendance at such courses is based on supervisors’ decisions, to fill gaps in employees’ knowledge.
Other forms of specialised training are designed for employees in defined senior positions. Such training is voluntary and its goal is to create favourable preconditions for fulfilling managerial positions Courses can cover working, social, and personal skills.
Hungary
In Hungary, training for customs officers is delivered as in-house training by the organisation. A certain level of internal professional training is compulsory for customs officers unless they have certain specific degrees earned at the Faculty of Law Enforcement of the National University of Public Service. This Faculty delivers specialised academic BA/MA level programmes in two specializations: Financial Investigation, and Customs and Excise Administration.
The Training, Healthcare and Cultural Institute (THCI) of the National Tax and Customs Administration (NTCA) has the responsibility for training, and also for human resource development of the staff of NTCA.
The training system for customs officers covers three different levels: vocational training; advanced professional training; and soft skills training.
Vocational training is obligatory for every customs officer except those who have a BA/MA degree accepted by national legislation as a substitute for this vocational training (e.g. a degree in law, economics and public administration). The Hungarian system comprises three levels. The first level is the induction training for new recruits. The second level is the basic vocational training. This has two parts: a general vocational training course that takes nine weeks, and then an 8-week specialised course covering customs, excise, and criminal affairs.
The third level of the vocational training is the middle level vocational training, which is obligatory only for people in a certain position and/or rank, based on national law. There are four specializations in middle level vocational training: customs, excise, criminal and enforcement. In our comparative analysis, we put this level into the category of specialised training.
Advanced professional training and soft skills training are delivered in more than 100 different types of training programmes available annually to the whole staff of the tax administration, based on their predetermined and approved training needs. These professional training programmes could be customs or fiscal-related, information technology, professional foreign languages, management, and so on. In every training program the aim of the training, the target group, the key competencies, the entry conditions, the content of the training and the evaluation methods are laid down. Soft skills training courses are also available, including communication, conflict management, and self-awareness courses.
Poland
In Poland the system of tax training is organised both centrally and locally. The central body is the CEZRF (Educational Centrum of the Ministry of Finance), but an important part of training is delivered by regional and local tax bodies. Additional stakeholders in the management of the system are the Director General of the Ministry of Finance, certain Departments of the Ministry of Finance, CEZRF, regional and local tax bodies, the Competence Centrum, trainers and the Program Council.
The system of tax training includes the following levels – vocational training, specialised training, interpersonal training and ad hoc training.
Vocational training includes three forms: adaptation training, specialised and vocational training, and training in tax applications. The specialised and vocational training covers seven areas: customer service, tax control, tax execution, tax administration process, tax control process, accounting for taxes, and tax penalty law. This compulsory level of training focuses on newly recruited staff. Its theoretical component is delivered centrally, and its practical component is delivered in the work place. A detailed table defines the link between the position of the employee and the content of their vocational training. The training on tax applications is only delivered centrally at CEZRF in co-operation with the Department of Information of the Ministry of Finance.
The specialised training has three levels: extended training in all seven areas of VVN, training in specialised topics, and training in tax applications for staff with new positions or tasks. This third level of training is available only to those staff who have completed their vocational training, and it is compulsory for tax officials holding certain defined positions.
Interpersonal training covers three areas: social skills, personal development, and management skills. A detailed table defines who is expected to attend this level of training.
Ad hoc training comprises courses that respond to changing needs, for example language courses, executive education, training delivered by other training systems, and training abroad. CEZRF regularly delivers executive education in three areas: management of tax services, tax law, and finance and accounting. It also has the power to deliver other training programmes.
Slovak Republic
In Slovakia, the training of tax officials is organised by the Academy of the Fiscal Directorate of the Slovak Republic. The system includes three compulsory levels: adaptation training, vocational training (20 days with examination) and specialised training (to pass this level the trainee has to complete successfully a minimum of three different specialised training courses, each lasting from 5 to 10 days) plus one voluntary level course introduced in 2016 – higher tax training.
Higher tax training is a specialised training project. Its goal is to provide trainees with expert knowledge and skills in tax administration. Participants are drawn from the most able tax professionals. They have had a minimum of 15 years practice in tax administration, and are most likely to hold the positions of tax administrator, tax controller and tax executor. The training involves full time study (160 contact hours) and focuses on topics such as knowledge management, tax innovations, risk management, fiscal policy, economic analysis, and creativity. All courses end with a final examination involving written and oral components, including a defence of the final thesis.
In addition to these courses the Academy offers a wide range of short term training courses, focusing on specific topics, for example reacting to legislative changes, as described in the following sections.
Comparative analysis of tax administration training systems in V4
In this section, we focus on two core comparative aspects: the organisation and the content of training. In addition we investigate whether specialised academic programmes are incorporated into the training system.
Table 1 lists the main bodies responsible for training. The three smaller countries have centralised systems, but Poland, whose land area exceeds that of the other three combined, uses a mixed system involving both centrally and locally delivered training. The bodies responsible for training in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia are part of the national tax administrations, but in Poland this body is connected to the Ministry of Finance and the responsibility for training is shared between more stakeholders.
Organisation of the training for tax officials.
Source: own research.
The curriculum content of the national systems for training tax officials (Table 2) is very similar. Certainly there are no major differences. The first level everywhere is adaptation training, compulsory for all new recruits, with the aim of equipping them to work within the tax administration. This training normally starts as soon as possible after recruitment, though before 2017 some delay was common in Slovakia.
The contents of the national training systems.
Source: own research.
This first level is followed by slightly different forms of VVN, normally during the first year after recruitment. In the Czech Republic, only general topics to help recruits understand tax administration and public administration are delivered in this compulsory training phase. In Hungary, both general and specialised issues are included. In Poland, only specialised topics are delivered, and already this phase includes differentiated access based on the concrete position held by the trainee. In Slovakia, VVN is compulsory, but may start very late after appointment. Only specialised topics are included.
In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, specialised training is obligatory for all tax officials. In Hungary and Poland, such training is only obligatory for officials holding certain designated jobs.
All four countries offer a wide range of voluntary specialised training courses, focusing on concrete needs. But at this level of training Slovakia’s courses, aiming to produce the best analytical brains in tax administration, are exceptional.
The last but not least interesting issue is the link between tax administration training systems and academic education. This link is most direct in Hungary, where the national public administration school has the form of a university and delivers specialised programmes fully recognised by the tax administration. Also in Poland the national public administration school has the form of a semi-university (Krajowa Szkoła Administracji Publicznej, available at http://www.ksap.gov.pl).The school does not deliver specialised tax administration programmes, but CEZRF has the right to deliver executive academic programmes. Neither in the Czech Republic nor in Slovakia are there direct links between the tax administration training system and the university system. Moreover, university staff are only rarely invited to deliver training courses. In neither country do universities offer fully targeted tax administration programmes.
The fact that co-operation between academia and the tax (public) administration in the Czech Republic and Slovakia is rather limited is not a surprise, for this phenomenon is described in the existing literature. For example, Vitalisova (2015) mapped the level of cooperation/non-cooperation between Slovak municipalities and stakeholders. Despite the fact that the replies by municipal representatives are certainly positively biased, half of the municipalities claimed that they do not cooperate with universities. As universities are located in all parts of the country, this is not territorial availability problem. To cross-check, we also interviewed a senior Slovak tax official who has responsibilities for training. His anonymous response is symptomatic: ‘any co-operation of tax administration and universities has important limits. Some links may function, but the most important specialized part of training, based on real case studies, delivered by trainers with “tax administration know how” can only be provided by our internal specialists’.
Conclusions
In this paper we compared four tax administration training systems in the V4 region. The goal is not only a simple comparative analysis, but also to search for any obvious lapses in good international practice, to try to assess to what extent the organisation of training may account for the relatively poor tax administration system results. The data clearly show that, in the V4 region, the content of the tax administration training system aims to follow good international practice, specified by the Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations. The training systems are similar and offer almost fully compulsory vocational training, and good possibilities for specialised training. All four countries have specialist institutions for tax administration training. The most visible gap is the very limited link between tax administration training and university level training in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Our data indicate that on an ‘input’ level all four tax administration training systems perform relatively well. We were unable to assess process and output levels – how training courses were delivered and with what concrete results. Such data was unavailable. Although evaluation forms for the courses may include relevant information we were unable to process them, or to check them for potential bias. So we can conclude that the organisation and structure of tax administration training in the V4 countries are not significant factors determining the relative performance of their national tax administration systems.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was completed with support from the research project “Performance Management in Public Administration: Theory and Practice in the Czech Republic and Other CEE Countries”, ID (CEP) GA16-13119 S.