I've read a few different articles this past week talking about a student working part-time in Amsterdam's city archives who "came across letters from Jewish Holocaust survivors complaining that the city was forcing them to pay back taxes and late payment fines on property seized after they were deported to Nazi death camps." Obviously this was a horribly unreasonable expectation from Amsterdam given the circumstances. And it tends to look worse as time passes. I don't retroactively endorse the policy, but I do have some questions about it.
Am I right in suspecting the Netherlands wasn't alone in this? It seems logical to me that such a reclamation policy would not have been targeting Jews per se, but rather a part of a broader program to try and raise revenues to rebuild post WW2 any way possible. But I do know the Dutch-Jew WWII relationship is rocky at best. Obviously, if Amsterdam was attempting to recover back taxes the scope would have included Jews who survived the Holocaust, but it'd make sense if it targeted others as well. My knowledge on this aspect of post-WWII history is lacking.
Was this program in Amsterdam targeted mostly at the Jews, and so the product of anti-Semitism that had the added benefit of raising revenue? or was it a part of an effort to raise desperately needed revenue that encompasses large portions of society, including the Jews? Also, was the demand for back tax payment (and other financial tools) unique to the Netherlands, or did other European countries attempt similar programs? (religion/ethnicity notwithstanding)
Just wondering. Thanks in advance, all!
I found a similar case in the final feport of the "study commission on the fate of the assets of the members of the Jewish community of Belgium, expropriated or abandoned during the war 1940-1945".
In Antwerp the local branch of the federal tax collection office asked the local office in charge of handling the restitution or liquidation of Jewish assets expropriated by the Germans (the "Sekwester") whether it pay the back taxes for "lack of occupancy" (leegstandsbelasting) incurred by the rightful owners of certain properties that had been stolen by the Germans. The tax collector stated that the owners couldn't reasonably be expected to pay the taxes as they had been deprived of the income generated by the properties. The Sekwester replied that in its opinion the owners were liable to taxation because "in some cases, though of course not in all, the local German (Jewish assets) administrative office had deposited accounts and credit with German banks and with the central German (Jewish assets) administrative office in Brussels", and the tax collector was advised to apply to the central Sekwester to have the taxes paid out of these moneys.
TL;DR: some Jewish owners were declared liable to back taxes on properties but the tax collector was advised to apply to the office in charge of handling expropriated Jewish assets for payment, rather than collecting directly from the owners.
Another issue that you haven't raised in your OP but which has to do with taxes as well, was that sometimes Jewish owners had to pay capital tax on assets returned to them. This was a consequence of the fact that a law on the establishment of a tax on capital had been passed in October 1945, in which no provision had been made for absentee owners or what to do in case of their return.
It seems logical to me that such a reclamation policy would not have been targeting Jews per se, but rather a part of a broader program to try and raise revenues to rebuild post WW2 any way possible.
No, it's just that erfpacht is a major source of income for the city of Amsterdam ('taxes' isn't a correct translation, it's a sort of lease on the ground on which the buildings stand; the article calls it 'ground rent'), and the capital has a notoriously unbending bureaucracy.
There was no special program for targeting Jews specifically, since going after unpaid erfpachtgelden is day-to-day business for the municipality; what really is worth noting is that the bureaucracy didn't regard the situation of deported Jews as a exonerating circumstance that warranted special treatment.
Now, whether this unwillingness to consider the plight of deported Jews in adjudicating whether or not they need to pay erfpacht is due to anti-Semitism, opposition to Jews being seen as 'special victims' or a bureaucracy without any heart is a very complicated discussion, but it's one that is well worth having.