Tax matters

Shift the Goal Post... and win!
 

That is exactly what our Nationalist government has done with the Income Tax Management Act! This is a government that proclaims itself to be Christian and a champion of Democratic values to boot!

 

The recent MEP election results were a blow to this party (see The Times Editorial). The Prime Minister acknowledged the punishing vote of its supporters, the very same people who voted the party into power in 1987, 1992, 1998 and 2003). The results will be "analysed" to see where the party / government has failed. This is reminiscent of what took place in 1998 after the electoral defeat of 1996; the PM, then Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami, now the party elected President of the Republic, had stated that the PN "got the message" of the people. Clearly the party did not get the message at all or at least did nothing to rectify matters! The same sentiment was echoed last week by the current PM, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi and I humbly believe that, although the message is again pretty obvious, the party has become so well ingrained in arrogance, that nothing can or will change.

 

There are many things that this government is responsible for. A lot of pain has been inflicted. In this write-up I shall limit myself to just one of these... the amendments to the Income Tax Management Act Chapt. 372 of The Laws of Malta - i.e. Art. 30 (4) (p. 21) and Art. 47 (4) (p. 40).

 

These amendments, in effect, nullify preceding provisions within the same law which cater for a specific period after which any claims by the IRD (Inland Revenue Department) become barred by prescription (statute barred). In other words, before the amendments, any tax for which no assessment is issued by the IRD within 8 years of a particular year of assessment, would become time-barred by law. The IRD had consistently refrained from informing tax-payers about their rights, and this law, and when tax-payers became aware it, objections were left pending until such time when the law could be changed.

 

Whereas it is in the interest of the whole country that any loop-holes in the law are removed, it is an abominable fact that these amendments are being applied in retrospect, even when objections have been submitted in writing well before such changes were incorporated into the law.

 

The delaying tactic of the IRD has seriously prejudiced the position of complainants. The government, seeing it was losing the game, changed the rules (or putting it another way, shifted the goal-post), to suit itself, half way through the game. Citizens do not enjoy the same privileges and powers as the government. The only ray of hope lies with the Petitions Officer of the European Parliament.... besides the ballot box!

 

One victim of these pathetic amendments is a non-working mother of 4 young children who was last employed in 1990. She has been hounded by the IRD since 1998 for a mere Lm174 and now has to pay this tax despite several letters written (well before the law was amended) to the effect that her case was time-barred by prescription!!!

 

Still wondering why the PN got a beating at the MEP election?

 

This is Maltese, PN-style democracy.... Ceausescu style!

 

 

Mark Bugeja MD (15/06/04)

 

References:

http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/islands/prime_ministers/fenech_adami_eddie.asp

http://www.maltadata.com/results.htm

http://www.maltadata.com/party03.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/524902.html

http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=156510 (The Times of Malta- Editorial - Message from the Ballot Box)

http://www.legal-malta.com/law/laws-of-malta.htm

http://www.ceausescu.org/

 

The Times - 14 July, 2004

Tax bill declared time-barred

The Board of Special Commissioners has ruled that a bill issued by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for the basis year 1992 but received by the taxpayer in 2001 was not enforceable after noting that the commissioner had unjustly invoked recent amendments to the law.

The board, composed of John Consiglio as chairman and Francis Bonello and Carmel Callus as members, heard a taxpayer claim that a bill for Lm210 issued by the commissioner for the basis year 1992 was in violation of article 31(1) of the Income Tax Management Act of 1994.

The article, as cited by the taxpayer, laid down that that: "Where it appears to the commissioner that any person liable to tax has not been assessed, or has been assessed at a lesser amount than that which ought to have been charged, the commissioner may, within a year of assessment, or within eight years after the expiration thereof, assess such person at such amount..."

The board noted that the article had been substituted in 1999 and amended in April 2004.

It heard how the taxpayer's tax return for the basis year 1992 was received by the Inland Revenue Department in December 1993 and on May 25, 1998 the department issued the bill which was placed on a mailing list dated June 23, 1998.

Prima facie the taxpayer received the bill on June 28, 2001, and, therefore, it was time barred according to article 31(1) of 1994. Consequently, the taxpayer filed her complaint before the board on July 13, 2001 and on January 13, 2004, that is two-and-a-half years later, the commissioner filed a reply in which he claimed that the bill was issued in 1998 and was, therefore, not time-barred.

The commissioner cited article 30(4) of the law, as amended in 2004, which laid down that years of assessment preceding 1999 were not to be time-barred when a bill was sent to the taxpayer by December 31, 2007.

The board noted that his was only tenable in cases where the taxpayer clearly did not fulfil his/her obligations in order for the department to carry out its functions without delay.

It also noted that a total time lapse of 10 years for the taxpayer to learn what the commissioner's stand was, indicated that the two parties were not on equal grounds.

The facts of the case showed that the department did not tackle the case in a way that suggested it was not at fault when it came to the time-barring issue and it was not just that, now, it evoked the 2004 amendment which, the board noted, was meant to look ahead.

For this reason the board ruled in the taxpayer's favour.

 

<Home Page     Page 1     Next Page>

 

 

See who's visiting this page. View Page Stats
See who's visiting this page.