Why should tax evaders be in polls race?
Monday, 15 December 2008
Shamsul Huq Zahid
One-third of the individuals, numbering 865, to be exact, who had submitted nomination papers seeking to contest in the upcoming parliamentary elections, did not have any tax identification numbers (TINs). They claimed that their annual income was less than Tk. 165,000, the amount exempted from tax.
Among these individuals were a few big names, Major (retd.) Abdul Mannan of Bkilpadhara, ASM Abdur Rab of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal and some candidates of the two major political parties-Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Awami League (AL). Major Mannan, a former state minister, is a renowned industrialist. Only a few days back, the concerned official refused to accept his nomination when he had flown into a Laxmipur constituency by a private helicopter, in violation of certain provisions of the Representation of the People's Order (RPO).
The National Board of Revenue (NBR) was surprised to see the disclosures made by the polls contestants. It is now contemplating actions against these people who have, deliberately or otherwise, concealed their wealth.
There is no denying that taking part in national elections is an expensive affair. Persons of small means would never dare to take part in those. In the elections held between 1991 and 2001, candidates of major parties spent money lavishly to get their berth in the parliaments. Even the candidates of small parties or independents had to spend funds worth more than a million or two. Undeniably, the situation this time is different because of the tough enforcement of the RPO provisions by the Election Commission (EC). Electoral campaigning would be less expensive than before, no doubt. But it is not going to be a free-of-cost affair. Candidates would have to grease the palms of his or her campaign workers and spend money on organizing rallies and processions in their respective constituencies. How would then persons having no taxable income dare to contest in national elections?
The EC had been tough on bank defaulters during the scrutiny of nomination papers. It even, initially, cancelled nomination papers of candidates who were found to be guarantors for loans that later became classified. It, thus, appears rather strange that the EC overlooked the issue of income tax evasion, particularly when the NBR is chasing the tax evaders. Some tax-evading politicians have been served with prison sentences by the courts.
The presence of so many tax evaders as candidates in a very important national election highlights, on the one hand, the quality of our politicians and, on the other, hollowness of the NBR claim about the intensive against tax evasion.
The sponsors of the 1/11 to a large extent have failed in their mission to improve the quality of the country's politics and politicians. The attempt to hide facts about wealth and income by the contestants in the national elections is a testimony to that fact.
The people, these days, are frequently questioning the integrity and honesty of the politicians. But they have virtually no option other than depending on the same breed of politicians, at least, for now. A change may come gradually, but not in the immediate future.
Actually, a person having no TIN should not have been allowed to contest in national elections. For, anyone with an income level below the lowest slab cannot afford to run for a parliamentary seat. The current tax-exempt income is not enough even to meet the family expenses by a lower-middle class family. Then, how can a candidate with such a meagre income meet the minimum campaign expenditure allowed under the RPO? The fact is that the campaign expenditures of most candidates would overshoot the limit prescribed by the EC.
The reasons behind the presence of so many non-TIN holders as candidates in the upcoming parliamentary polls are not difficult to understand. Rather the ratio of TIN holding and non-TIN holding candidates is better if seen in the context of the national tax coverage. Only 0.6 million out of 140 million people do pay tax annually.
However, it is not the number but the social and income status of the candidates have come into focus. How could the NBR allow these people to remain outside the tax net?
Those who are participating in the national elections, in most cases, are socially influential people because of their political connections and wealth. But one-third of them have never bothered to pay tax or the NBR people did not feel it necessary to bring them under the tax net.
Against this backdrop, the Board has recently concluded its motivational campaign to increase the number of taxpayers. A number of teams of the NBR went to big shopping malls and markets in Dhaka city, interviewed businessmen and brought them under tax net. However, these new taxpayers are yet to submit tax returns.
It is highly unethical for the candidates to evade tax. The tax evaders deserve to be thrown out of the polls race. But the EC cannot do it even if it wants to because of the legal lacuna. The NBR which had failed to net all these eligible taxpayers is now thinking of starting legal actions against the candidates who have concealed facts in their wealth statements. But the NBR does need to tell the people the reasons for its failure to bring these high profile people under the tax net.
One-third of the individuals, numbering 865, to be exact, who had submitted nomination papers seeking to contest in the upcoming parliamentary elections, did not have any tax identification numbers (TINs). They claimed that their annual income was less than Tk. 165,000, the amount exempted from tax.
Among these individuals were a few big names, Major (retd.) Abdul Mannan of Bkilpadhara, ASM Abdur Rab of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal and some candidates of the two major political parties-Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Awami League (AL). Major Mannan, a former state minister, is a renowned industrialist. Only a few days back, the concerned official refused to accept his nomination when he had flown into a Laxmipur constituency by a private helicopter, in violation of certain provisions of the Representation of the People's Order (RPO).
The National Board of Revenue (NBR) was surprised to see the disclosures made by the polls contestants. It is now contemplating actions against these people who have, deliberately or otherwise, concealed their wealth.
There is no denying that taking part in national elections is an expensive affair. Persons of small means would never dare to take part in those. In the elections held between 1991 and 2001, candidates of major parties spent money lavishly to get their berth in the parliaments. Even the candidates of small parties or independents had to spend funds worth more than a million or two. Undeniably, the situation this time is different because of the tough enforcement of the RPO provisions by the Election Commission (EC). Electoral campaigning would be less expensive than before, no doubt. But it is not going to be a free-of-cost affair. Candidates would have to grease the palms of his or her campaign workers and spend money on organizing rallies and processions in their respective constituencies. How would then persons having no taxable income dare to contest in national elections?
The EC had been tough on bank defaulters during the scrutiny of nomination papers. It even, initially, cancelled nomination papers of candidates who were found to be guarantors for loans that later became classified. It, thus, appears rather strange that the EC overlooked the issue of income tax evasion, particularly when the NBR is chasing the tax evaders. Some tax-evading politicians have been served with prison sentences by the courts.
The presence of so many tax evaders as candidates in a very important national election highlights, on the one hand, the quality of our politicians and, on the other, hollowness of the NBR claim about the intensive against tax evasion.
The sponsors of the 1/11 to a large extent have failed in their mission to improve the quality of the country's politics and politicians. The attempt to hide facts about wealth and income by the contestants in the national elections is a testimony to that fact.
The people, these days, are frequently questioning the integrity and honesty of the politicians. But they have virtually no option other than depending on the same breed of politicians, at least, for now. A change may come gradually, but not in the immediate future.
Actually, a person having no TIN should not have been allowed to contest in national elections. For, anyone with an income level below the lowest slab cannot afford to run for a parliamentary seat. The current tax-exempt income is not enough even to meet the family expenses by a lower-middle class family. Then, how can a candidate with such a meagre income meet the minimum campaign expenditure allowed under the RPO? The fact is that the campaign expenditures of most candidates would overshoot the limit prescribed by the EC.
The reasons behind the presence of so many non-TIN holders as candidates in the upcoming parliamentary polls are not difficult to understand. Rather the ratio of TIN holding and non-TIN holding candidates is better if seen in the context of the national tax coverage. Only 0.6 million out of 140 million people do pay tax annually.
However, it is not the number but the social and income status of the candidates have come into focus. How could the NBR allow these people to remain outside the tax net?
Those who are participating in the national elections, in most cases, are socially influential people because of their political connections and wealth. But one-third of them have never bothered to pay tax or the NBR people did not feel it necessary to bring them under the tax net.
Against this backdrop, the Board has recently concluded its motivational campaign to increase the number of taxpayers. A number of teams of the NBR went to big shopping malls and markets in Dhaka city, interviewed businessmen and brought them under tax net. However, these new taxpayers are yet to submit tax returns.
It is highly unethical for the candidates to evade tax. The tax evaders deserve to be thrown out of the polls race. But the EC cannot do it even if it wants to because of the legal lacuna. The NBR which had failed to net all these eligible taxpayers is now thinking of starting legal actions against the candidates who have concealed facts in their wealth statements. But the NBR does need to tell the people the reasons for its failure to bring these high profile people under the tax net.