Hetmantsev backs body cameras: how tax inspections will change

Hetmantsev insists that body cameras should become a mandatory element during all inspections and contacts between tax officials and businesses, turning from a technical innovation into an instrument of trust and transparency in relations between the state and business.
Context and background of the initiative
Ukrainian business has traditionally been sceptical about visits from tax inspectors, and the post‑war economic recovery, the pause in the reform of the State Tax Service, and the increase in complaints about abuses have only strengthened the demand for transparency of state institutions. The government and the Verkhovna Rada in 2024 intensified the digitalization of fiscal processes – electronic inspection reports, automated risk‑based selection of taxpayers, integration of video recording – which is shaping a new system of “tax security”, where body cameras are logically intended to reduce subjectivism and abuses. Hetmantsev emphasizes that similar practice is already used by the police, customs, the State Bureau of Investigation and NABU, protecting both citizens and officials who obtain video evidence in cases of conflicts or accusations of abuse of power.

Regulatory and technical component
The initiative provides for amendments to the Tax Code that will directly oblige officials of the State Tax Service to record inspections on video and to store the recordings for a specified period, while lawyers insist on at least a one‑year term for potential court disputes. It is planned to create a centralized database of video recordings with limited access for authorized units of the State Tax Service, the State Audit Service, courts and law‑enforcement bodies, as well as to equip inspectors with the necessary devices and to approve internal guidelines on ethics and data confidentiality.

Arguments “for”

• Transparency of interaction. Video recording minimizes the risks of pressure or corrupt actions, since every fact of communication is recorded on camera.
• Protection of business rights. Entrepreneurs receive an additional evidentiary mechanism in the event of a dispute, including when challenging the results of an inspection.
• Evidentiary base for internal investigations. If complaints are filed about the behaviour of specific officials, body cameras ensure the objectivity of the assessment.
• Psychological effect. The very existence of a recording disciplines both parties and reduces aggressive or emotional reactions.

Arguments “against” and criticism
Opponents stress that body cameras will not become a “magic pill” against abuses without changes in staffing culture, integrity standards and real accountability of officials. Doubts are also raised by the costs of equipping several thousand inspectors, creating the infrastructure for storing video and protecting data under wartime budget constraints, as well as the risks to the commercial and personal information of businesses, which require clear rules for processing, anonymizing and using recordings in court.

Comparison with international experience
In a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands, body cameras have long been used by police officers, customs officers and tax inspectors. In the Netherlands, video recording of field inspections has been a standard since 2019, which has helped reduce the number of complaints and speed up their consideration; Ukraine declares its intention to follow such models, but success will require not only the technical component, but also integration of video recording with a risk‑based system of taxpayer selection, so that inspections are carried out according to transparent criteria rather than at the discretion of individual tax officials.

Impact on tax culture
If the initiative is fully implemented, it may become a catalyst for forming a new culture of tax administration. When business understands that its rights are protected and an inspector cannot act “off camera”, the level of trust in the state naturally increases. However, it is important that implementation does not turn into a formality: if body cameras are switched on only partially or recordings disappear, trust will be lost completely. Here, internal audit and external control by parliamentary and civil society structures must play a key role.

Legal perspective
Lawyers emphasize that a tax inspector, as an official of a state body, must act as openly as possible, and video recordings can be admissible evidence in cases of abuse of power or violations of inspection procedures. At the same time, a unified approach to the authenticity of recordings will be crucial for court practice – through technical marking (time‑stamps, GPS coordinates) or a single register of recordings – and under such conditions Hetmantsev’s initiative may transform tax control from a punitive mechanism into a service function of the state, where the inspector and the entrepreneur are in more equal conditions in terms of information protection.

Political dimension
The political aspect of the initiative is also significant: in the context of the need to restore trust in institutions and reduce the shadow economy, body cameras can become a symbol of a “new integrity of the authorities”. For Hetmantsev, this is not only a tool of control but also a manifestation of political responsibility: if the state demands transparency from business, it must be the first to demonstrate transparency in its own actions.

Final paragraph
If you have any questions or problems related to the activities of tax authorities, preparation for tax inspections, video recording of inspectors’ actions or challenging the results of an inspection, please contact our specialists for an individual consultation.

Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at “WINNER” Law Firm, PhD in Law.