PARAMARIBO — Tax expert Stanley Esajas believes that parliament itself should determine which costs the tax authorities may charge for collection. According to him, the proposed authority for the responsible minister to determine those rates is contrary to the Constitution and should not be adopted in this form.
The new one Collection Act is desperately needed, because the current law dates from 1869 and contains outdated and possibly no longer valid provisions. However, according to Esajas, the bill that is being considered by the National Assembly (DNA) raises questions about the constitutionality of the rules and the protection of taxpayers.
“He advocates that parliament adjust the proposals on the points he indicates before they are adopted”
Unconstitutional
He does state that his assessment is not complete. One of his most important objections concerns the separate bill on the costs of collection. This gives the minister the authority to set rates for reminders and other collection actions. Esajas calls this power contrary to Article 155, first paragraph, of the Constitution. According to him, that article requires that the tax burden and guarantees for taxpayers are regulated by law.
Costs that someone has to pay for collection increase the financial burden and should therefore also be determined by the legislature. He also relies on Article 117 of the Constitution, which prescribes that punishments and the rules for them must have a legal basis. Collection costs are also covered by these guarantees. According to his explanation, the minister may not independently determine the rates. Esajas calls the proposed provision unconstitutional and believes that it should not be adopted in this form.
Merge costs law
Esajas also believes it is unnecessary to include the rules on collection costs in a separate law. After adjustment, these provisions can be included in the new Collection Act. That would make the legislation clearer. As an alternative to regularly adjusting amounts due to inflation, he proposes a fiscal unit of account. Parliament could then determine annually by law how many Surinamese dollars that unit is worth. This way, amounts remain adjustable, while the decision remains with DNA.
The expert warns that inflation is more often cited to give ministers or other administrative bodies the authority to adjust amounts and rates. According to him, this could lead to changes in the tax burden without parliament deciding on this. He also objects to the delegation of regulatory powers to the minister in other tax proposals, including the General Tax Act.
Collection in case of objection
The bill contains various grounds on which the Recipient can immediately claim a tax debt, for example in the event of bankruptcy or imminent departure abroad. Esajas finds the wording about the fear that a tax debtor will embezzle goods unclear. According to him, the text does not make it sufficiently clear to whom and at what time the Recipient must make that fear plausible.
Objection or appeal against a tax assessment does not automatically stop collection. The taxpayer must separately request a suspension. Because, according to Esajas, the General Tax Act also contains a regulation on this issue, he believes that there may be uncertainty about which rule applies. He believes that the regulation should be included in one law.
He also draws attention to the State’s prerogative over goods and to references to the Civil Code that he believes are incorrect. He believes that it should be checked whether the law includes all taxes and levies that should be subject to the collection rules. Despite his criticism, Esajas calls replacement of the 1869 law necessary. He advocates that parliament adjust the proposals on the points he indicates before they are adopted.
Click here for the Tax Collection Costs Act.
