Taxpayers' rights
Editorial
In Business Page [please note: link provided by LOSP web site] last Sunday, Mr Christopher Ram highlighted some of the more draconian aspects of the Income Tax Act (Cap 81:01), and its essential unfairness from the taxpayer's point of view. Among other things, he adverted to the power that Sections 4 and 105 give to the political authorities (as opposed to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue) to interfere in taxation matters. It would come as a surprise to many Guyanese to learn, for example, that the first-named section allows the Executive President both to access taxpayers' information and disclose that information to persons authorized by him to receive it. Needless to say, this was an amendment introduced in the Burnham era for reasons which are only too self-evident. The second-named section empowers the President "to remit, wholly or in part, the tax payable by any person in respect of any year of assessment if he is satisfied that it will be just and equitable to do so." This power too is an arbitrary one, enabling a political office-holder to override a professional appointee in the discharge of his duties. Mr Ram went on to remark that political authority was also exercised through appointments to the Revenue Authority, since the President appointed the Commissioner General, while the Minister of Finance appointed the Chairman and the members. At the moment, as he noted, the President retains oversight of the Ministry of Finance, thereby concentrating control of the tax machinery of the country in the hands of one individual. Mr Ram recalled the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in Barbados telling him that he would rather resign or go to court than give information to any politician. Most Commissioners in the vast majority of established democracies would agree with him. Here, of course, Burnham-style anomalies, such as Sections 4 and 105 of Cap 81:01 remain on the statute books by default, because there is little awareness among the wider public of exactly which acts were amended to cater to what Mr Ram calls the "paramountcy concept," and there are no organized lobbies which can campaign for change. Quite clearly, however, these sections are in need of repeal. If one is to have a Revenue Authority which is perceived to be fair and equitable, and which respects the confidentiality of the taxpayer, then it not only has to be divorced from political influence, but has to be seen to be so. Ideally, the Revenue Authority should have its own Commission dealing with appointments, etc., in the same way as the Judicial Service Commission and the Public Service Commission, et al. The Business Page contributor also discussed, inter alia, the draconian penalties for late payment and late filing, about which the average taxpayer is much better informed. "This is terribly unjust," wrote Mr Ram, "when one considers how tardy the Department is in responding even to the simplest request... Just try getting a Certificate of Compliance to enable you to dispose of a simple motor-cycle or to get a Liability Statement to enable you to determine your liability." In addition, as he said, if the Department owes the taxpayer for overpaid taxes, it can take its own time about a refund, and there is no right to a set-off where both parties owe each other. There is certainly nothing fair or equitable about that. He proposes that the tax laws should "impose strict deadlines on the Department to carry out its functions under the [Income Tax] Act, to pay interest at corresponding rates, to allow set-off and to ensure prompt refunds," among other things. When one considers too that the tax base is rather narrow and that the burden of income tax falls disproportionately on salaried workers, it would seem that they in particular are not getting fair treatment. We are moving into an era when taxpayers' rights will have more of a resonance than has been the case hitherto. The Government and the Department of Inland Revenue should respond accordingly.
|