Over the past decade, the legislator has focused heavily on ‘alternative dispute resolution’. At the core of this concept is the idea that conflicts can also be resolved outside the courts.

Legal proceedings have clear disadvantages. For the authorities, traditional dispute resolution, i.e. via the courts, is extremely costly. Justice is an expensive department suffering from structural problems, such as long waiting times. The delays undermine legal protection and confidence in the rule of law. In order to function properly, the rule of law requires that disputes are resolved quickly and effectively.

Lawyers are required to inform their clients in advance of the option to seek alternative dispute resolution, including mediation. The judges were given broader powers to impose mediation. While previously, mediation was only possible if all parties agreed to it, now the judge can impose it as soon as one party to the proceedings requests it.

The De Wever government explicitly included in the coalition agreement that alternative dispute resolution should be possible not just in relationships between citizens, but also in the relationship between citizens and government. A necessary step towards a stronger rule of law. The coalition agreement clearly emphasises the role of the tax mediation service, with the aim of further expanding it or even transforming it into an arbitration service.

The judiciary has also taken steps. The trend started with the Amicable Settlement Chamber (ASC) in the family courts has now been expanded to other courts. For example, the tax courts of first instance are experimenting with mediation chambers to a large extent.

However, there is resistance from the tax authorities. The perception there is that mediation adds little value, because discussions have already been held with the taxpayer. Some civil servants do not consider themselves a party to the proceedings, but rather a neutral actor, almost a judge. They do not see a role for mediation Yet, this is an absolute misconception, as mediation differs fundamentally from a traditional discussion between two parties. A neutral third party guides the process and completely changes the dynamics. Moreover, in almost every dispute, discussions have already taken place. That does not make mediation any less relevant, on the contrary.

It is remarkable that there is so much resistance within the civil service, while the current government, the legislature and the judiciary are putting forward mediation as a contemporary solution to the structural problems within justice. A change in the mindset is absolutely necessary. If all levels of government agree that mediation has added value, mediation should be formally recognised as a principle of good governance. This will provide civil servants with structural insight. Also in tax matters. Mediation is the way to defuse conflicts and ensure that tax disputes do not always have to be fought all the way to the highest instance. It will also contribute to the tax reform and can be part of the new taxpayer charter. These two objectives have already been pursued by virtually every government in this century.

The author is a partner at Tuerlinckx Tax Lawyers