Category: Taxation

Posted on

Garnishment and Distress Proceedings

Two proposals announced in 2017 Budget Speech – inserting into the Income Tax Act distress proceedings similar to the provision in the Value-Added Tax (VAT) Act, and garnishment of funds in bank accounts for the settlement of tax arrears – have caught the national attention. The discussion has not been helped by the misinformed and misguided statements in the media, even by columnists and persons who have a duty to be better informed.

That failure which is the cause of much of the confusion, misinformation and “noise”, has led to a situation whereby two very different provisions are conflated and wrong premises are used to defend or justify the two proposals. They should be addressed separately. Here is why.

The terms garnishment and distress are of significant legal and constitutional import and depending on circumstances may have different application to action against the person (in personam) and against the thing or property (in rem). As these matters apply to our Constitution they also raise the tension, if not the clash, between, on the one hand, Article 65 which grants to Parliament the power to “make laws for the peace, order and good government” and on the other hand, Article 142 which protects property rights subject to exceptions, as well as Article 8 which makes void any law inconsistent with the Constitution. Continue reading “Garnishment and Distress Proceedings”

Posted on

Guyana must comply with CCJ’s ruling on the “environmental” tax

Introduction
On May 8, the Caribbean Court of Justice handed down a decision in a case against Guyana brought by a Surinamese manufacturing company Rudisa Beverages & Juices N.V. and its Guyana subsidiary Caribbean International Distributors Inc. In essence the two companies were claiming a refund of what is called under the Guyana’s Customs Act an environmental tax of $10 on the importation of non-returnable beverage containers. The two companies asked the regional court which is the protector of the Revised Treaty of Chagauramas (RTC) among other things, to order Guyana to refund to them the sum of US$6,047,244.47 paid by them to the GRA up to 24th October 2013 and any further amounts paid since that date.

After submissions and arguments which began in June last year, the Court:

A) Declared that the collection of the environmental tax in relation to goods of CARICOM origin is incompatible with the RTC; and

B) Ordered Guyana to:

i) Immediately cease the collection of environmental tax on imported non-returnable beverage containers;

ii) Pay to CIDI the sum of US$6,047,244.47 together with such further sums paid by them from 25th October 2013 to the date of this judgement;

iii) Pay interest on the sums payable by this judgement at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of the judgement; and

iv) Pay the costs of these proceedings to be taxed if not agreed.
Continue reading “Guyana must comply with CCJ’s ruling on the “environmental” tax”

Posted on

Not a watershed budget for the poorer person

As Guyanese analyse the Budget for 2013 it is useful to compare some of the numbers with how they are presented and received. There is no group which has welcomed the Budget more than the Private Sector Commission, one representative describing it as our (PSC) budget.

Let us take the apparently straightforward example of the reduction in the rate of personal income tax from 33⅓% to 30%. Readers will note that not only do individuals not have the benefit like dependents allowances while companies are allowed to deduct almost all their expenses, but the individual is still paying the same or higher rate of tax than non-commercial companies do, that is 30%.

If we exclude the personal allowance of $50,000 per month an individual’s nominal and actual tax rate is the same: 30%. Compare this with say GBTI whose nominal corporate tax rate is 40% but which enjoys a host of tax shelters. Its effective corporate tax rate for 2011 is 26.82%. Shareholders of GBTI pay no tax on dividends while its employees pay 30%. Even if we say that the company and the shareholder are the same – which it clearly is not – the shareholders’ tax rate is 26.82%. That is inequitable.

But let us get back to the benefits of the reduction in the rate of income tax and the increase in the rate of NIS, both of which impact on take home pay, or as the PSC says, spending power. In dollar terms, for each $10,000 earned by the worker the tax saving is $333. It means this: the worker who was earning $50,000 per month at December 31, 2012 gets nothing out of the budget; one who earned $60,000 per month takes home $333; one who earned $80,000 takes home $680 more, etc. The earliest point at which the increased take home pay exceeds $10,000 per month is for employees earning $380,000.

Note that I have not taken the projected inflation of 3.5% for 2013 into account. If that is done the income level at which there will be a net saving is for employees earning $296,000 per month. All persons earning below that income per month will actually be worse off.

The PSC is right: this is a watershed budget – but not for the poorer person.

Posted on

Things we have not noticed – conclusion

Introduction
This week I continue to raise questions on matters we may not have noticed in areas of public finance and management in Guyana. If former President Bharrat Jagdeo is rightly credited as the mastermind for the circumventing the financial provisions of the constitution and the financial laws, the credit for the execution of any schemes go to his choice as Minister of Finance, Dr Ashni Singh. Dr Singh as an accountant and former deputy Auditor General has used all his knowledge to confuse all and sundry over the Consolidated Fund and its sub-fund the Contingencies Fund, and other funds known and unknown.

Minister Clement Rohee should justifiably feel aggrieved that he is the only Minister of this government to have been targeted with a no-confidence vote in the National Assembly. After all, Dr Singh must at least have been aware of the deception over the rate of the VAT and the $4 billion for which Irfaan Ally was taken before the Committee of Privileges in the last Parliament while he, Dr Singh, was creatively spared by the then Speaker. He was central to the Clico debacle which has not been followed by any investigation into the serial illegalities that continue to this day; is solely responsible for the annual abuses of the Contingencies Fund; would have played a major role in moving more than $30 billion, yes thirty billion dollars, in dormant bank accounts without proper accounting; and is the minister with responsibility for the state of the National Insurance Scheme. And let us not forget that he is the Chairman of the NICIL Board that has been central to the breaches of the constitution and the inappropriately named Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. NICIL under him is several years in breach of the Companies Act and basic rules of accounting but he continues merrily on. Mr Rohee has every reason to think that there has been some goat in his past.

No more lottery accounting
We can assume that the Minister of Finance has had no hand in the decision to have Mr Ramson offer opportunistic advice on the lottery funds, but he clearly has no problem with the discontinuance by the Audit Office of the annual reporting of the funds collected and how they have been spent. It would be excessively charitable, however, to believe that he has not been consulted and has played no part in ensuring that his colleagues who were targeted for budget cuts earlier this year remain funded, parliament or no parliament, cut or no cut.

However assiduously, and at times clumsily, Attorney General, Mr Anil Nandlall, has rushed to position himself for entry into the Guinness Book of Records for the highest number of cases brought by an attorney general against his own parliament, the responsibilities and the powers of the minister of finance make his office the next most important one in the land. For that reason, while we just cannot afford not to notice the things the does, he and his government, with the help of a hardly working parliamentary opposition, a media that is at best poorly informed, a conflicted and handicapped Audit Office under an unqualified Auditor General, an equally unqualified Accountant General and a Finance Secretary with his own challenges and biases, have made sure he is the only brainer in the country, to use a word he employed recently to disparage his hosts at a public function.

As a specific example, how else does one explain the failure by the Audit Office, the National Assembly, the Public Accounts Committee and the press to demand an explanation for the non-tabling of a mandatory annual report on tax holidays granted by the Minister of Finance? There is sufficient anecdotal evidence that tax concessions alone cost this country about a half as much again as the taxes we collect, to make us take the Minister’s cavalier attitude to tax holidays a matter of substance and seriousness. Yet we as a country choose not to notice. We must have lost our marbles along the way.

Unrestrained powers
Who in the political opposition, the wider National Assembly or the Economics Affairs Committee have taken the time to consider and understand the powers the laws give to the Minister to grant all forms of tax concessions without any disclosure or accountability? I am convinced that the reason tax reform is not on the agenda is that it might expose the lawlessness as well as the ease and impunity with which even illegal concessions can be granted to friends and family alike. We have all forgotten that it is now one year since President Ramotar set up a Tax Review Committee while ensuring that it would not function. As the GMA, the Chamber of Commerce and the Private Sector Commission head into the fund-raising activities and the fun of the cocktail circuit, maybe one of their leaders would ask about the fate of that committee as well as the state of the NIS.

But let us stick to the question of taxes and see the extent of the powers of the Minister of Finance in addition to the power to grant tax discretionary holidays.

The Minister of course has powers to make laws under what is referred to as delegated legislation, and should have these tabled in the National Assembly and published in the Official Gazette. While this tool is seen as useful in enhancing the efficiency in public administration and is available generally to all ministers, the proliferation of such subsidiary legislation has aroused increasing scrutiny. As a result, countries around the world and more recently Australia have introduced legislation to regulate when and how such delegated legislation is used.

I thought it might be useful in an article of this nature to separate the powers of the minister of finance into those that have been used to help in curbing corruption from those which enhance public financial management in Guyana.

The incumbent has done nothing on corruption other than to challenge the Transparency Institute and question Guyana’s place on the Corruption Perception Index. He has centred procurement in his office, and his ministry was the biggest defender of Fip Motilall who cost this country so much.

The incumbent has to consider himself the luckiest man alive for not having been subject to a motion that he be brought before the Privileges Committee of the National Assembly.

Tax laws
Let us now look at some of the powers of the office granted to him by various laws. The Minister can effectively make laws to provide that the interest payable on any loan charged on the Consolidated Fund or guaranteed by the government is exempted from the tax; to approve as a mortgage finance company any company which has entered into an agreement with the government whereunder the company agrees to finance housing development; for the introduction of a presumptive tax on the income from self-employment of individuals who have annual turnover from self-employment of less than ten million dollars (not done); for the introduction of a minimum tax on the income from self-employment of individuals whose annual turnover from self-employment exceeds ten million dollars (not done); exempting under defined circumstances the income of non-resident shipping companies; deciding which sectors and products receive export allowances; designating the allowable expenditure for development of agricultural land; designating the central authorities for transacting diamond business; providing for minimum tax on self-employed professionals (not done); exemption from filing returns by persons whose income comes mainly from employment or interest (not done); specifying the books and records to be maintained by persons carrying on any business; appointing an agent in the UK for the purpose of facilitating the assessment of the income of persons residing in the United Kingdom (a clear throwback to the days when England was the Mother Country); appointment of the Board of Review (which has not been done for several years); making and revising Double Taxation Agreements (which has not been done for nearly two decades); entering into agreements with other countries for the exchange of information for the prevention of evasion or avoidance of income tax and the carrying out of those agreements (not done); prescribing the times for the payment of taxes by companies; and providing for the remitting wholly or in part of the tax payable by any person or category of persons on such income, in respect of any year of assessment, and in accordance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.

And that list is under the Income tax Act only.

Under the Corporation Tax Act the Minister can declare as exempt the income of any institution established for the encouragement of thrift or any income arising from investments of any fund or scheme established for the provision of annuities to designated persons.

But his real opportunities for acting in the most unaccountable and irresponsible manner lie in his power to grant tax holidays and two other lesser known provisions of the laws, one in the Income Tax Act and another in the VAT Act. Under the Income Tax Act, the Minister has the power to reduce the rate of withholding tax on any distribution or payment for the purpose of giving effect to any agreement relating to tax between the government and any person not resident in Guyana. Neither the GRA nor the Commissioner General has any say in the matter but must simply do as the Minister says. Nor is there any reporting of the exercise of this discretionary power.

And under the VAT Act, in order to zero-rate a supply of goods and services, all the Minister has to do is sign with a person an investment agreement for which there is no definition, specified contents or penalties for non-compliance with any promises by the investor.

Additionally, the Minister of Finance makes all the delegated legislation under the Value-Added, Excise and the Customs Acts and appoints directly or indirectly all the members of the Revenue Board which exercises wide policy-making powers over the administration of all the revenue collecting agencies.

These are enormous powers that are hardly regulated, if at all. True, the Financial Management and Accountability Act has certain guidelines on the charging of expenditure on the revenue of the country; how sums due to the revenue be remitted; and the authority for the remission, concession, or waiver of taxes.

Conclusion
The Minister has shown himself time and again to be irresponsible and willing to bend and if necessary to circumvent the law. There is hardly a qualified accountant in the traditional public service, and both the posts of Auditor General and the Accountant General are held by unqualified persons. It is not the ideal environment in which the Minister of Finance is a Dr Ashni Singh. Rather than allowing Deodat Sharma to misdirect them with petty cash issues, the PAC must make a concerted effort to rein in the excesses of Dr Singh which have cost this country tens of billions.

The Economic Affairs Committee has work to do.

Posted on

Things we have not noticed

Introduction
Following, but not as a result of last week’s column addressing the parlous state to which Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon has brought the National Insurance Scheme, I had two very interesting conversations, one with a business leader and the other with an MP. In advance of consultations to be held with the actuary on his draft report on the eighth five-yearly actuarial report on the NIS, they both wanted to know my thoughts on the report’s findings and recommendations. Both seemed not to be in the least bit uncomfortable to admit that while they had last week’s Sunday Stabroek they did not get around to reading the newspaper or the full-page column on precisely that topic. We can only guess about their contribution to a consultation for which they would have been so hopelessly unprepared on a matter of such grave national importance, a matter that has been the subject of several articles over a recent two-week period.

It is even worse. By now we all should have been aware that the government of which Dr Roger Luncheon is the Cabinet Secretary and the Board of the NIS of which he is the Chairman, did not implement the recommendations contained in the sixth and the seventh actuarial reports on the Scheme at December 31, 2001 and 2006. But the two persons I spoke with apparently did not know about the parlous state of the Scheme, while my politician friend was bold enough to ask seriously but rhetorically, how did we “allow that?” Perhaps our politicians have been reading too much Lewis Carroll.

A second issue on the NIS is the location of the consultation. Now you would expect that anyone consulting with the actuary would want to meet with him outside of the framework of the NIS Board or its chairman. But that kind of liberal and rational thinking would in Dr Luncheon’s eyes be too dangerous. The consultation had to take place with Dr Luncheon, whose leadership of the Scheme is not insignificantly responsible for its parlous state, at Luncheon’s office and under his chairmanship. Dr Luncheon may strike many as a bumbling incompetent but he remains a dangerous practitioner of artful politics. The idea to hold the consultations on his turf and in his presence was clearly designed to control any criticisms of his government’s abominable management of the Scheme, now facing its worst crisis in 42 years.

Even as we ponder the serious medicine prescribed by the actuary to address the crisis the NIS faces, my hope is that the media would now ask the private sector as well as the political parties and the trade unions in particular, for a report on the consultations. As I indicated last week, I am particularly concerned that if the recommendations are accepted the burden of the adjustments would be felt mainly by the workers of the country.

Now you see it, now you don’t
Today’s subject seeks to raise questions on other matters we may not have noticed. It touches on the disproportionate sharing of the benefits and burdens of the taxation system and the inequality it has spawned in the vast disparity of wealth among those who are part of the power structure and those outside of it. This column has addressed such disparity time and time again and for emphasis captioned a column on January 29 of this year drawing attention to the US system under the topic, “If Mitt Romney was in Guyana, his 13.9% tax rate would have been lower.” The reason is that our tax system favours the employers, those with capital over the workers, who often struggle to make ends meet and who at the end of their working lives which the actuary now says should be extended to sixty-five have nothing but an NIS pension to look forward to. I will deal with that disproportionality next week and look at how different types of income are taxed differently in Guyana.

For starters, let us look at the system of remission of duties granted by the government which was reported on each year in the annual report of the Auditor General up to 2005.

There is a lot to argue with on whether some of the figures do not defy the logic of the reported performance of the economy during the six years. The wild swings between 2003 and 2005 seem to make little sense, but that is really not relevant here, except perhaps to reflect the quality of some elements of the work done by the Audit Office. As for the revenues of the country and their impact on the resources available to spend on education, health, security and infrastructure, it matters little whether the authority to grant remission of duties since 2003 is vested solely in the Commissioner General as the Audit Office seems to think.

But even if the Audit Office is correct, and regardless of where the range of authority lies, there should surely be some formal manner in which the body vested with the powers of remission reports to taxpayers and the National Assembly on the extent and value of remissions granted. If the power is vested in someone else, the one person who should insist on the publication of the information is the Minister of Finance who has constitutional responsibility for the national budget. Any taxes required to meet public expenditure which are borne, if at all, at lower effective rates by one segment of the population, must inevitably be met by those who do pay. But coincidentally or otherwise, the Audit Office ceased to report on remissions from the time Dr Ashni Singh became Finance Minister.

Dr Singh and tax remissions
Dr Singh has been egregiously reckless on the expenditure side of the Budget, misdirecting public funds to NICIL of which he is the Chairman, making unlawful withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund for which he is solely responsible, and authorising the transfer of billions of dollars from the 2000 series bank accounts which requires statutory authority. Under the Jagdeo presidency – and quite possibly still – spending outside of the authority of an Appropriation Act became normal with not even a hint of protest from the Finance Minister. After his role in the unlawful granting of concessions to the former President’s friend, it is difficult for anyone to believe that he is any less careless with the country’s tax revenues than he is with its expenditure.

Yet, our laws give the Minister of Finance enormous powers to give away tax revenues, over what may appear to be a small range of taxes but which have substantial fiscal implications. We start with the first and perhaps best known concession, the tax holiday. Under the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act, the Minister of Finance has discretionary powers to grant an exemption from corporation tax with respect to income from new economic activity of a developmental and risk-bearing nature, or from dozens of economic activities. Without putting too much of an emphasis on it, the ease with which Mr Jagdeo and Dr Singh amended the law for friends shows how elastic and discretionary the law is.

And bear in mind that in approving tax holidays, the Minister is also extending exemptions from Property Tax and the Capital Gains Tax act.

Here again there is a silence feeding the appetite of the conspiracy theorists. Tax holidays can extend from five to ten years and cost billions. So the law requires some accountability. Under the Investment Act the Audit Office is required to carry out annual audits of the tax holiday incentives granted by the Minister, but the Audit Office has failed in its obligations under section 38 of the Investment Act to have laid in the National Assembly such a report for any year. The deadline for this is six months after the end of each financial year.

I have repeatedly raised this omission with no reaction from anyone. Surely the Public Accounts Committee has a duty to deal with this blatant disregard for the law with the potential of massive cover-up of tax giveaways. All to the detriment of those who pay taxes.

To be continued