It is the government which is suffering the hardship of foregoing an estimated $13M per month in new taxes from lawyers and doctors, and there are precedents for citizens to collect taxes on behalf the state.

This is the thrust of the argument contained in an application filed by the state seeking the discharge of the conservatory order, granted to lawyers earlier this month suspending the imposition of new service taxes to be collected by professionals.

Attorney-General Doodnauth Singh, Khursid Sattaur in his capacity as Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) and the Finance Minister, Saisnarine Kowlessar have been named as defendants in the legal challenge to the Fiscal Enactments (Amendment) Act.

The Act raises the practice licences for lawyers and doctors from $10,000 to $250,000 and introduces a 5 and 10 per cent fee for their services which they are required to collect from clients.

The state’s affidavit, sworn to by Sattaur, claims government is sustaining a total loss in excess of $13M in taxes per month, with “approximately $6,562,923... through the legal profession and, $6,903,346...through medical practitioners (who have also filed a petition).”

“That consequently the defendants contend that the result of the Conservatory Order or Injunction,...has been that the (GRA) is deprived of the collection of in excess of $13,000,000 in lawful taxes.”

Sattaur argues that the hardship is in fact on the government and if the lawyers were to win their case, they could seek a refund or have their payments deducted from their contributions.

He also mentions that Parliament is not mandated to consult with affected interest groups before passing legislation.

The lawyers had protested that they should not be forced to collect taxes on behalf of the state. But in the affidavit Sattaur responds that employers already collect taxes on behalf of employees in the form of Pay As Your Earn deductions and through the deduction of NIS payments.

Justice Claudette La Bennett had granted an injunction suspending enforcement of the Act after a group of legal practitioners including attorneys-at-law Rajendra Poonai, Fitz Peters, Roopnarine Satram and Benjamin Gibson, and lawyers from the firm of Hughes, Fields and Stoby, Andrew Pollard, Stephen Fraser and Robin Stoby moved to the court to challenge its constitutionality.