his wife and children

Dear Rui,

May I tell you that until recently I was myself an arguido and I felt great about it. Now that I am not anymore an arguido, I must confess that I feel a little bit depressed. It all started when in late 2005 I paid my income tax. Six months later, early in 2006, I received a notice from the tax department to pay the same income tax again.

You guess, I refused to pay it again. Soon it was found that this second request was due to a mistake by the tax department. They did enter my 2005 income tax payment as IRC (corporate income tax), rather than as IRS (personal income tax) as they should have done. Thus, in their records, I was at fault with my 2005 income tax payment.

Even though it was the tax department mistake, they kept insisting that I should pay it again (with interest and fines), and then claim the reimbursement of my first payment. I kept refusing: it was their mistake, so they should correct the mistake, as I had paid my income tax as due. In June 2006 I got a new notice from the tax department and they were not kidding: either I would pay my 2005 income tax (which I had already paid) within 10 days, or my salary and banking accounts would be frozen (penhorados, as they like to say here in typical jargon).

I complained forcefully. But to no avail. As the deadline approached and upon counselling from my accountant I paid again the very same 2005 income tax I had already paid, this second time with interest and fines, to avoid what seemed to me the more serious, professionally damaging consequences of having my salary and personal bank accounts frozen and being displayed in public as a relapsed taxpayer.

Now, Rui, get ready for the big surprise. Three weeks later my salary and personal bank accounts were effectively frozen upon instructions from the tax department for alleged missing payment of my 2005 income tax - which, may I say it again, I had already paid twice, the second time with interest and fines.

Frankly, I really got mad that day, I must admit. I decided that I would write an article for a newspaper, which would be published three days later. I then sent a copy of the article by mail to the director-general of the tax department. At a given point in the article, referring to the Portuguese tax system, I stated: "Este é um sistema feito por canalhas e para canalhas (...)" and a few lines below, I added: "(...) e o Dr. (his name, the tax chief ) é o canalha número um".

.

Rui, it is not always easy to translate from this rich, emotional Portuguese language into the much sober, rational English language. The term canalha is a case in point. Its meaning can range widely from small children to son-of -a-bitch. You choose.

.
The article was titled: "Dr. (his name, the tax chief): comendador e evadido fiscal", as there were press reports in the country stating that he had forgotten to pay some of his taxes before taking up his position as tax chief. After just one year at the job former President Jorge Sampaio made him a comendador.

By that time (June 2006) the tax department was making big headlines in national newspapers announcing record tax collections. Before presenting the director-general with my article, I wrote him in the same e-mail: "Sir, I learn from the newspapers, although I am not surprised at all, that tax collections are reaching record levels in the country. With your methods of tax collection even a vulgar thief (ladrão de vão-de-escada) could do much better".

The very same day the mail was sent, one of his assistants was phoning the newspaper to prevent publication of the article while other was phoning me at home saying that my salary and bank accounts would be immmediately unfrozen and that they would send me promptly a reimbursement cheque for my double income tax payment, which they eventually did. The article was never published.

Three months later, I got a notice from the Department of Justice (DIAP) setting me up for a hearing as the director-general of the tax department had filled a criminal complaint against me for insulting and slandering (defamation). As my article had never been published no defamation was apparently involved. The point is that the tax chief stated in his complaint that he had shown my e-mail to his wife and children and they were quite upset by the way I had treated their husband and father. Accordingly, I was indicted for slandering the director-general before his wife and children. He claimed a compensation worth four months his salary, about one hundred thousand euros (Rui, these people do not treat themselves badly, do they?).

The day I showed up at DIAP I signed a paper that for the first time in my life made an arguido of me. At this time, if I can recall, the prime-minister was an arguido in the Freeport case, several mayors of large Portuguese cities were also arguidos in different cases, and so were several ex-ministers; the former president of a major trade union had been an arguido for a record setting twenty years. The big arguido of the time, though, was the President of the best soccer team in the country, two times European champion. I was thus in good company. (By the way, Rui, were you, by any chance, an arguido at the time?)

.

The criminal complaint filled by the tax boss would eventually turn into a formal accusation and two months later I was presented in court before an instruction judge. She decided to drop the case. My status as arguido turned acusado was over, it lasted for six months only. Neverthless, I decided to put it on my CV and intend to inform my grandchildren about it. I can already see them at school, proudly telling other kids: "My grandaddy was really a great man in this country. He was an arguido!".

The judge never admitted it explicitly, but I am still wondering whether in her decision to drop the case she concurred with my judgement that the former tax chief is eventually a canalha (Rui, feel free to translate as you wish).