Ukraine’s parliament has received an alternative proposal to overhaul leadership and employment rules at the State Tax Service, an institution central to revenue collection and economic governance. Bill No. 16079-1 combines a competitive appointment for the agency’s chief with fixed tenure, external audits, statutory pay guarantees and a one-time attestation of tax officials.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine reported the bill’s registration on Tuesday, September 22. It was submitted by lawmakers Maksym Buzhanskyi, Serhii K ما? Kostriichuk, Serhii Lytvynenko, Stepan Cherniavskyi and Kyryll Nesterenko as an alternative to Bill No. 16079, registered six days earlier.

The explanatory note presents prolonged interim leadership at the tax authority as a threat to institutional stability. According to the sponsors, an acting chief lacks the horizon and security needed to pursue a durable strategy, while repeated temporary appointments can weaken accountability and confidence among taxpayers and international partners. In a country facing exceptional demands on public finances, the quality of tax administration also has direct implications for budget resilience and economic security.

Under the proposal, the Cabinet of Ministers would appoint the tax service chief for five years following an open competition. No person could serve more than two consecutive terms. Eligible candidates would need Ukrainian citizenship, a master’s-level legal or economic education, at least ten years of professional experience and five years in management, as well as command of the state language and a record consistent with integrity and professional competence.

A seven-member panel would run the selection. Three members would be drawn from nominees of international and foreign organisations that have recently supported Ukraine in structural reform, finance or anti-corruption work, and three would be nominated through the body responsible for state financial policy. The final seat would go, by lottery, to a Hero of Ukraine who is or was a service member and received the title during the defence against Russian aggression.

That seventh seat gives the alternative bill a distinctive political and symbolic element, but it also raises a practical question about expertise. Military service and national distinction may add public legitimacy and an independent perspective, yet they do not automatically provide experience in tax administration or executive recruitment. The credibility of the mechanism would therefore depend on transparent lottery rules, conflict-of-interest safeguards, proper preparation for panel members and a scoring system capable of limiting subjective choices.

Panel meetings would be open to the public, journalists and international organisations, recorded and broadcast live through the Cabinet’s website. Applicants could face legal-knowledge and general-ability tests, practical assignments, integrity and competence interviews, and the checks required by anti-corruption and lustration legislation. The commission would ultimately identify two candidates deemed best qualified and submit their names through the appointment process.

Fixed tenure is intended to shield the successful candidate from arbitrary removal, although the bill preserves multiple statutory grounds for dismissal. The finance-policy minister could seek removal for inadequate delivery against core performance indicators. This makes the future design of those indicators consequential: a narrow emphasis on gross collections might reward aggressive assessments, whereas a balanced framework would also examine voluntary compliance, taxpayer services, litigation outcomes, arrears, digital reliability and the predictability of administrative decisions.

The chief’s performance would face independent reviews after one year and again after three years. A three-person audit commission, selected by the Cabinet from nominees put forward by international and foreign organisations, could request documents, interview officials confidentially and examine information held by the tax authority. A unanimous finding that the agency was ineffective and its chief performed improperly would become a legal basis for dismissal.

Strong access powers may prevent the audit from becoming ceremonial, but they also expose a sensitive fault line. Tax files contain commercial secrets, personal information and data relevant to national and cyber security. Although the draft imposes confidentiality duties and prohibits interference in operational work, legislators will need to test whether the rules on data handling, liability for disclosure, audit methodology and avenues for judicial challenge are sufficiently precise.

The bill reaches well below the senior leadership. It calls for a one-off attestation in two waves, starting with deputy chiefs, headquarters department heads, regional directors and their deputies, before moving to other officials. Failure to consent, refusal to participate or an unsuccessful result could lead to dismissal and exclusion from tax-service employment for five years. Given those consequences, transparent criteria, reasoned decisions, access to evidence and effective appeal rights would be essential to prevent attestation from turning into an instrument for selective personnel replacement.

Compensation is another pillar of the plan. Minimum base salaries would be tied to the subsistence minimum at no less than 14 times that benchmark for central-office officials and 12 times for territorial bodies, alongside allowances, individual performance payments and team bonuses. The explanatory note says implementation would require no additional state spending, a claim that deserves fiscal verification because statutory salary floors could increase the wage bill or require reallocations within the service. The wording concerning an additional cyber-security salary coefficient of “1.5 percent” may also need technical clarification.

The parliamentary Committee on Finance, Tax and Customs Policy is designated as the lead committee, while numerous other committees will review budgetary, anti-corruption, security, labour, digital and European-integration implications. Registration is only the opening stage, and lawmakers must compare the proposal with the principal bill before deciding which commission model and accountability structure to retain. The eventual test will be whether the reform can give the tax service stable leadership without insulating it from lawful oversight, and cleanse personnel systems without sacrificing due process.