Revenue Commissioner

 

INTRODUCTION

As the question concern is based on Revenue Commissioner’s powers which were conferred prior to the amendment of Income Tax of 2004, and those powers were labelled as Discretionary Extra Judicial Powers.

According to the Tanzania Revenue Authority Act Cap 399 R: E 2019 define the meaning of Revenue Commissioner to  Mean “a person appointed to act on behalf of the Commissioner General for the purpose of administering tax laws and non-tax revenue…..”

 

MAIN BODY

(A) Why were the powers labelled as discretionary extra judicial powers

Hereunder are the reasons why these powers were labeled as Discretionary Extra Judicial Powers to Revenue Commissioners

First; because Revenue Commissioners were given large mandate to determine and to make any decision basing on the tax cases. Example on recovery of tax by distress as provided under Section 109 of the Income Tax Act of 1973 it shows on how revenue commissioner has large mander to deal with the property of tax payer even those properties are not subjected to tax.

Secondly; because Revenue Commissioner given a mandate to deal with things which are not deals totally in tax issues.

Thirdly; because Revenue Commissioners were given power to conduct assessment of tax and adjust the tax assessment, if possible to the tax payer. This power given to the revenue commission can be exercised in proper manner or not. But all thing about assessment was at their hands.

Therefore; those above are among of the reasons to why the powers given to the revenue commissioners were labeled as discretionary extra-judicial powers.

 

(B)  Provide a list of such powers of the minister of finance and direct that you extract the list from the Income Tax Act

The followings are among of powers conferred by Revenue Commissioner prior to the amendment of Income Tax Act of 2004.

·         The power of recovering tax by way of distress; as  provided under section 109 (1) of the Income Tax 1973 as stipulated that “In any case in which tax is recoverable in the manner provided by section 108 the Commissioner may, instead of suing for such tax, recover the same by distress, and for that purpose may by order under his hand authorize any public officer or an officer of a court to execute such distress upon the goods and chattels of the person from whom such tax is recoverable and such officer may, at the cost of the person from whom such tax is recoverable, employ such servants or agents as he may think necessary to assist him in the execution Of the distress”

Power to compound offences; as proved under section 121(1) of the Income Tax Act 1973Where any person has committed any offence under this Commissioner to compound Act other than an offence under section 133 the Commissioner may,subject to such directions as the Minister may give on that behalf, at any time prior to the commencement of the hearing by any court of a charge in relation thereto, compound such offence and order such person to pay such sum of money, not exceeding one half of the amount of the fine to which such person would have been liable if he had been convicted of such offence, as he may think fit: offences Provided that the Commissioner shall not exercise his powers under this section unless the person concerned admits in writing that he has committed such offence under this section.

 

·         The power to appear on prosecution as public prosecutor; as provided under Section 124 of the Income Tax of 1973  which provide that Notwithstanding anything contained in any written law any officer duly authorized in writing in that behalf by the Commissioner may appear in any court on behalf of the Commissioner in any proceedings to which the Commissioner is a party and, subject to the directions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, any such officer may conduct any prosecution for an offence under this Act and for such purpose shall have all the powers of a public prosecutor appointed under the Criminal Procedure Code

 

(C)  Explain how these powers operate in a manner that raised concern to the petitioners?

The followings are points to show on how the powers were operate in a manner petitioner claim.

Where the  revenue commissioner apply his power to  recovery tax even to the property which is not subjected to tax; example the act of commissioner to authorize under his hand any officer to execute distress upon goods or chattels of the tax payer in order to recover the tax. This is not good and not fair to the tax payer. So that manner is not good and that why petitioner claim.

When  revenue commissioner apply his power of assessment by adjust tax to the tax payer sometime leads to unfairness and bias to the tax payer because he can adjust by increasing the tax; so  Revenue commission has the power to adjust tax assessment so sometime has a power to increase the tax to the tax payer and other tax pay.

Where tax pay required to file objection to the revenue commissioner who previous conduct tax assessment against him (tax pay); so it is unhealthy to give the power the same person who previously determine and conduct tax assessment of the tax pay. Mostly tax payer they were under fear to the act of the commission because it is not fair to them to return back for the object to the person who previously assessed him on the tax.

Therefore; those discussed on paragraph C are among of the point on how those powers were operate in a manner raised concern to the petitioners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCE

Tanzania Revenue Authority Act Cap 399 R: E 2019

INCOME tax Act 1973