By Kolawole Ojebisi
The proposed tax reform bills sent to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu, on Wednesday, scaled second reading at the House of Representatives.
This, however, did not happen without fierce debate by legislators who sought clarification on some grey areas in the bills among other issues.
After hours of debate, members of the green chamber called for removal of contentious clauses from the tax reform bills.
The majority of lawmakers, especially, those from the North, raised concerns over contentious clauses in the bills and lack of clarity in some of the provisions of the bills.
Rep. Sada Soli Jibia (APC, Katsina) in his debate, said while the bill will enhance efficiency, ensure compliance, and harmonise tax collection within the three tiers of government, there were several inconsistencies and challenges in some clauses of the bill that must be addressed.
He said among the inconsistencies is the conflict between some of the clauses with the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Some of these challenges are constitutional and jurisdictional concerns, particularly in Section 141, which deals with the supremacy clause which contradicts some of the positions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Then, there is the issue of overlap on the existing laws, particularly, the Personal Income Tax Act, Company Income Tax Act and the FIRS Tax Act.
“There is the practical issue of this law in Section 122; in Section 95 to Section 119,” he said.
Similarly, Rep Abubakar Hassan Fulata (APC, Jigawa) who also raised concern over some of the provisions of the bills said all proposals, with the exception of the one dealing with tax administration, have no interpretation clauses.
He noted that a bill without an interpretation clause is subject to abuse and to the whims and caprices of whoever is going to interpret the bill.
He said, “Therefore, we must ensure that there is an interpretation clause on the other three bills”.
Rep. Fulata added that the clause dealing with the systematic phasing-out of TetFund, NITDA and NASENI should be completely deleted.
The lawmaker further added that all the clauses with inconsistencies should be removed.
He cited examples of some of the sections with inconsistencies to include Sections 197, 198, 199, 200, 2001, and 2002, which he said should be removed.
He also faulted the aspect of the bills which seek to amend 40 Acts, saying, the said Acts were not brought before the parliament.
He said, “Those 40 Acts should be placed before us so that we compare against those bills. About 40 Acts are being repealed and phased out by these Acts that we are dealing with.
“Then, I am also putting it forward that Section 38 presents a position of double taxation. If you are buying a property, the buyer will pay tax, also, the seller will pay tax. This amounts to double taxation.”
The House later passed the tax reform bills for a second reading after adopting the revised position of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) on VAT sharing formula and other key aspects that generated controversies in the proposal.
The passage followed the consolidation of the four reform bills and extensive debates on the general principles of the bill led by the House Leader, Prof Julius Ihonvbere.
