Taxes & Tariffs | |
Taxes & Tariffs | |
1039 VIEWS | |
![]() |
Friday, December
04, 2020 / 9:08 AM / by KPMG Nigeria / Header Image Credit: CPA
The Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT or "the Tribunal")
sitting in Benin on 8 October 2020 decided in Citibank Nigeria Limited
(Citibank or "the Appellant") and Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue (RSBIR
or "the Respondent") that tax authorities must prove that a taxpayer has
committed fraud, willful default or neglect in order to invoke the provisions of
Section 55(2) of the Personal Income Tax Act, Cap P8, Laws of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 (as amended) (PITA) to investigate taxpayers
beyond the six-year statutory period.
Facts of the case
In August 2018, RSBIR notified Citibank of its
intention to carry out a back-duty Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) tax investigation of
the Appellant's records for a nineteen (19) year period covering 1999 to 2017
financial years (FYs). The Appellant responded to the notice stating its
inability to provide documents beyond the six (6) years provided for document
retention by Section 332(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990, CAP
C20, LFN, 2004 (CAMA), and requested for a meeting with the Respondent.
The Respondent, however, ignored the Appellant's
request to meet and issued a best of judgment (BOJ) assessment amounting to N303.9 million
(including penalty and interest) in respect of PAYE taxes for 2006 to 2017 FYs,
covering a twelve (12) year period. The Appellant disagreed with the BOJ tax
assessments and objected in writing within the statutory 30-day period,
reiterating its earlier position. Further, the Appellant reminded the
Respondent that some of the documents requested for 2010 to 2015 FYs have been
previously submitted to the Special Tax Audit Reconciliation Committee of the
Respondent. The RSBIR, however, re-issued the BOJ tax assessment as final and
conclusive.
Issues for determination
Based on the prayers and arguments submitted by the
parties, the Tribunal formulated only one key issue for determination, which
was, "Whether CITIBANK is liable to the BOJ assessment for unremitted PAYE
taxes imposed by RSBIR?".
TAT's Decision
After considering the arguments of both parties, the TAT held that:
tax assessment can only be final and conclusive where the taxpayer fails to meet the three conditions provided in the tax law for a valid objection, namely:
The Appellant met the three conditions in the objection submitted to the RSBIR, therefore, the assessment cannot be final and conclusive.
1. It was not within the RSBIR's rights to determine whether the Appellant was guilty of fraud, willful default or neglect as provided in Section 55 (2) of PITA. Such determination is the remit of the TAT or any other court of competent jurisdiction.
2. However, where the Respondent is of the view that the
Appellant may have committed any of the above acts, the burden of proof lies
with the Respondent before Section 55(2) of PITA can be triggered. Based on the
pieces of evidence provided, the RSBIR failed to prove that Citibank committed
any act of fraud, willful default or neglect. Therefore, the six-year statute of
limitation subsists and the RSBIR is barred from carrying out an audit or
investigation on years earlier than 2012.
3. The Respondent, in applying the provision of BOJ
assessment, failed to evince its duty of fairness and due diligence based on
actual figures and facts. Consequently, the BOJ assessment was set aside by the
Tribunal.
Commentaries
The issue of invoking the provisions of section 55(2)
of the PITA by the tax authorities for periods beyond the six-year limitation
period has been a contentious issue between taxpayers and the tax authorities.
Typically, the tax authorities would issue tax investigation letters to
taxpayers for periods beyond the stipulated six-year statute-barred period
without any proof that a fraud, neglect or willful default has been committed by
the taxpayer as provided by Section 55(2) of the PITA. The TAT's decision
reaffirms the provisions of the extant tax laws for conducting back-duty
investigation, and the conditions that must be established before such exercise
can be initiated by the tax authorities for statute-barred periods under
Section 55 (2) of PITA or 66 (1) of Companies Income Tax Act, Cap C21, LFN,
2004. The TAT further held that only it or any court of competence jurisdiction
has the power to determine that such fraud, willful default or neglect has been
committed.
Further, the TAT's decision has again clarified that
an assessment cannot be deemed final and conclusive where a valid objection
letter has been filed by the taxpayer in line with the provisions of the
relevant tax laws. Therefore, the tax authorities should refrain from treating
assessments as final and conclusive unless the conditions stipulated in Section
66 of the PITA, or the other similar provisions of extant tax laws have been
met.
Finally, the TAT clarified that a BOJ assessment must
be reasonable, fair and not oppressive. The TAT further noted that a BOJ
assessment must be based on actual figures and facts and computed on a yearly
basis for clarity. This reinforces an earlier decision of the TAT Lagos Zone in
the case of Nexen Petroleum Nigeria Limited vs Lagos State Internal Revenue
Service on the use of discretionary powers to assess employees to tax on a BOJ
basis of assessment. Therefore, tax authorities should ensure that BOJ
assessments, where necessary, are based on factual figures and broken down into
relevant tax years, where an audit or investigation covers several years.
Conclusion
The TAT's decision reinforces the provisions of
Section 55 (2) of the PITA and will provide impetus to taxpayers to challenge
the indiscriminate audit and investigation exercises conducted by tax
authorities beyond the six-year limitation period. It is hoped that tax authorities
would, going forward, conduct their tax audits within the stipulated period.
This will minimise the pervasive practice of using tax investigation as basis
for extending the period of the audit, even though no fraud, willful default or
neglect has been committed by the taxpayer.
Related News