Finance Bill 2013: Tax on moveable assets being imposed retrospectively

Experts raise questions over definition of moveable assets.


Kazim Alam June 21, 2013
"Although the FBR has confirmed the definition of ‘net moveable assets,’ the definition of ‘moveable’ is still ambiguous," Partner at Badami Law Associates Komail Badami PHOTO: FILE

KARACHI:


Near the end of the 65-page Finance Bill 2013, presented before parliament on June 12, is buried a chapter that is inconspicuously titled “Income Support Levy Act 2013,” a tax to be charged at the rate of 0.5% on net moveable assets in excess of Rs1 million.


Net moveable wealth means the amount by which the aggregate value of the moveable assets belonging to a person, as declared in the wealth statement for a tax year, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the liabilities owed by that person on the closing date of the tax year.

If the fact that it is called an ‘Act’ and has already ‘come into force at once’ despite being part of the Finance Bill 2013 was not surprising enough, its full title seems to suggest that it is going to be imposed retrospectively. In fact, Section 3 of this Act explicitly states that the levy will be applicable from tax year 2013 and onward.



Thus, the question arises: how can a proposed amendment, that would probably become part of the Act only upon the passage of the Finance Bill 2013, be applicable for approximately 355 days of a year that has already passed?

“The Finance Bill 2013 itself is still a proposal, and not an Act. Therefore, the applicability of the bill is still questionable,” said Komail Abbas Badami, who serves as partner at Badami Law Associates, a Karachi-based tax advisory firm, while speaking to The Express Tribune.

In the likely case of the bill’s passage, he noted, the changes introduced in the Act should ideally be prospective in nature. However, in such a case, the Income Support Levy Act 2013 should instead be named Income Support Levy Act 2014, in order to make it applicable from tax year 2014 and onward, Badami says.

Nevertheless, concerns that taxation experts are raising with regard to the Income Support Levy Act 2013 are not just limited to its retrospective applicability from tax year 2013. Questions such as whether net movable assets are to include foreign currency bank accounts, motor vehicles and fixed deposits that are not allowed to be moved remain unanswered, Badami says.

“Although the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has confirmed the definition of ‘net moveable assets,’ the definition of ‘moveable’ is still ambiguous,” he adds.

Wealth statement

As per Finance Act 2012 (hence applicable for tax year 2013), every resident taxpayer whose last declared or assessed income for the year is Rs1 million or more must furnish wealth and wealth reconciliation statements.

However, the recently-tabled Finance Bill 2013 proposes that every individual taxpayer filing a return of income will now be required to file a wealth statement, along with a wealth reconciliation statement for the year, irrespective of his or her declared or last assessed income.

Apparently, this is being done in order to ascertain the tax payable under Income Support Levy 2013 at the rate of 0.5% on a person’s net moveable assets in excess of Rs1 million.

“So how would the FBR determine the cases where taxpayers are not required to file a wealth statement as per provisions of Finance Act 2012?” Badami asks, adding the proposed change being introduced through Finance Bill 2013 should ideally be applicable from tax year 2014.

“The FBR’s attempts to make the submission of a wealth statement compulsory from tax year 2013 in order to ascertain the tax payable under the newly-imposed levy cannot be allowed in the eyes of law,” he adds.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 22nd, 2013.

Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

COMMENTS (5)

Not a tax consultant | 11 years ago | Reply

The issues raised in question do not talk about being unconstitutional therefore no comment is required for the 'first comment'.

Thank you for pointing out the definition issue. The General Clauses’ Act does specify 'unless different definition is given' therefore a different definition is required here to make sure that it is not detrimental for investment, etc.

The issue raised in the 'third comment' could have been explained as being a procedural change and hence becoming applicable from tax year 2013 but at times issues need to be raised in order to capture the audience. If the FBR was clear at the time of issuing the Finance Bill that Wealth Statements will be required from the tax 2013 by all individuals (as per your comment) then why did they 'clarify' in the amended Finance Bill that Wealth Statements will be required to be filed from tax year 2013.

In response to the 'fourth comment' the definition of 'person' and various other definition and sections of the said Act clearly define on whom the tax is to be charged.

Conclusively the basic idea of the article (i feel) was to create awareness amongst the audience. I believe that the idea of 'retrospectively' (not forgetting that the tax is being imposed 355 days after the tax year) can be defined by giving an example of surcharge for tax year 2011 that was applicable for 3.5 months and not for the whole tax year 2011. Another example could be of 'namaz' and 'roza' becoming applicable from the day they were introduced and not retrospectively! We do live in Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the sanctity of the religion itself should be positively utilised.

Tax Consultant | 11 years ago | Reply

In view of above I do not find any legal issue in enforcement of Income Support Levy with respect to the time when next wealth statement is to be filed.

However, there is one issue which I think is rightly raised. That is the Act does not tell upon whom it is levied. The Act must say that it is levied upon those who are required to file wealth statement under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Otherwise it will be levied on every person which is not the intention of the legislature.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ