Lame defence of FBR performance
The revenue body’s performance cannot be blamed on external factors
PHOTO: AFP
Several unfounded and unsound conclusions bordering on the ludicrous have been drawn by a special aide to the prime minister on revenue about the 20th April Supreme Court ruling on the Panama Papers. These would not bear any kind of scrutiny. For instance, the aide erroneously considers the Federal Board of Revenue’s omission from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) as a good omen and a sign that it had done its work. If anything, the verdict was scathing in its criticism of the role of institutions such as the FBR that was lax, as was the National Accountability Bureau, in investigating people who had been named in the Panama leaks in April last year. But in a masterclass of self-delusion the aide said the JIT snub showed there was no deficit of trust at all.
Lest the premier’s aide forget: the apex court put a huge question mark on the performance of the premium tax and financial watchdog, noting with more than passing annoyance that the FBR issued initial tax notices half a year after the Panama data came into the public domain. Some 400 Pakistanis were named in the Panama and Bahama leaks for owning offshore companies in tax havens, yet the FBR baulked at taking any meaningful action against them.
Let us be clear that the absence of bilateral exchange of information treaties with those tax havens did not hinder the work of the FBR, as suggested by the PM’s aide. The revenue body’s performance cannot be blamed on external factors.
In another affront to logic and common sense, the same aide says the FBR will not open those Panama cases in which transactions have taken place more than five years ago, citing the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. One clause of the ordinance, however, explicitly discourages all time limits. But the official will not concede to that. Perhaps his interpretation comes from another ordinance altogether. Or perhaps the revenue adviser is living in another country. His remark that no one would be safe in Pakistan if the FBR starts opening 50-year-old cases has a surreal quality about it. It does speak volumes about the sloppiness of our revenue strategies. It’s no wonder then that the probe into the Panama leaks went now where.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 23rd, 2017.
Lest the premier’s aide forget: the apex court put a huge question mark on the performance of the premium tax and financial watchdog, noting with more than passing annoyance that the FBR issued initial tax notices half a year after the Panama data came into the public domain. Some 400 Pakistanis were named in the Panama and Bahama leaks for owning offshore companies in tax havens, yet the FBR baulked at taking any meaningful action against them.
Let us be clear that the absence of bilateral exchange of information treaties with those tax havens did not hinder the work of the FBR, as suggested by the PM’s aide. The revenue body’s performance cannot be blamed on external factors.
In another affront to logic and common sense, the same aide says the FBR will not open those Panama cases in which transactions have taken place more than five years ago, citing the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. One clause of the ordinance, however, explicitly discourages all time limits. But the official will not concede to that. Perhaps his interpretation comes from another ordinance altogether. Or perhaps the revenue adviser is living in another country. His remark that no one would be safe in Pakistan if the FBR starts opening 50-year-old cases has a surreal quality about it. It does speak volumes about the sloppiness of our revenue strategies. It’s no wonder then that the probe into the Panama leaks went now where.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 23rd, 2017.