ILLEGAL TAXES

This prompted Opposition Senator Wade Mark to accuse the Government of imposing illegal taxes on the population and signalling the Opposition’s intention to challenge the matter legally. Following the adjournment, Finance Minister Colm Imbert dismissed Mark’s allegations. He said all taxes are being collected in accordance with the law. He also said the opinion of the Treasury Solicitor was sought, “just to confirm that our understanding of the law is correct.” The Bill and the three motions were passed in the House of Representatives on November 9.

Before the debate could begin on the Bill and the motions, Khan said Government had intended to debate those matters yesterday but, “we got an opinion from the Treasury Solicitor.” Quoting part of the Treasury Solicitor’s opinion, Khan said, “In the interim, I am of the view that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Order 2016, continues in operation and will continue in operation until Finance Bill Number Three and the relevant orders 2016, completes its full passage in the Parliament and the Act is assented to by the President.

This process must be completed within a four-month time-frame, beginning October 20, 2016 and ending on February 19, 2017.” Quoting further from the opinion, Khan said, “I (Treasury Solicitor) am of the view, that it is permissible for the State to collect and continue to collect online purchase taxes and the rest (of taxes).” In response, Mark said the UNC took, “no comfort in this intervention.” At a subsequent news conference, Mark charged that Government used the Treasury Solicitor, “to undermine the Parliament and muzzle the Opposition.” Mark said the Opposition would seek to “test the legality” of the Treasury Solicitor’s opinion and could challenge the matter in court. He argued that these matters are normally dealt with in a specific way in Parliament but Government, “sabotaged the Senate to go and campaign.” Mark claimed that under the Customs Act, the Comptroller of Customs could be forced to make refunds once the tax collection orders connected to the Bill expire. Saying the orders expire in 21 days unless approved by Parliament, Mark said, “Today is the 27th day...We intend to challenge these orders and we will develop the necessary opinions to do so.” Mark said in his 25 years as a parliamentarian, he has, “never seen anything like this where the Government imposes a tax on the population and refuses to have these orders confirmed by the Parliament before they bring the Bill.” He wondered whether Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi would agree with the Treasury Solicitor’s opinion.

Mark claimed Government, “cannot withstand the outcry of the people of the people on the imposition of tax after tax after tax.” Alleging that the People’s National Movement (PNM) has plans to fire 6,000 CEPEP workers after the Local Government elections on November 28, Mark said the PNM is entering its 15th month in office and, “they have brought no meaningful legislation” to Parliament.

When they have legislation...they run under the cover of time,” Mark scoffed.

Independent Senator Dr Dhanayshar Mahabir was also surprised about the Bill and motions not being debated. “There could be a contrary legal opinion as well,” he suggested. A division was taken to adjourn the Senate to a date to be fixed. Three Independent Senators (David Small, Hugh Russell Ian Roach and Paul Richards) voted with the Government for the adjournment.

Prior to the Senate’s adjournment, Senate President Christine Kangaloo told Mahabir it was unnecessary for her to interpret a particular Standing Order he referred to.

Imbert later told Newsday, “The new taxes on alcohol and tobacco are collectable and legal once the relevant orders are submitted to Parliament.” He explained that Government has done so within the prescribed period and, “according to the law, we now have until February 2017 to debate the orders in the Senate.” Imbert continued, “This procedure is specific to the Customs and Excise Orders.” The minister said other orders relating to online tax and other matters have already been passed in the House. On why the Treasury Solicitor’s opinion was sought, Imbert said, “We were satisfied that the 21-day time period meant that the orders simply had to be submitted to Parliament, rather than passed within, 21 days.” He further stated, “We were aware that there was an alternative view that all of these orders should have been debated and passed in both Houses of Parliament within 21 days. So we had to check the law to make sure.”