Over the past two years, a substantial number of people have called at my ministerial offices to complain, discuss or ask for help regarding problems they were facing vis-à-vis the Inland Revenue Department. Apart from those having problems with the TCU (Tax Compliance Unit), most of these complaints in essence result from cases in which the taxpayers were investigated by the relative section at the tax department because they opted not to declare all their income during a particular year.

There are certain cases in which this non-declaration of income happens because the taxpayer is either misinformed or lacks the very information he needs. But it is also true that in other cases it happens because the tax payer believes that he can get away with it. However, one can get away with it so many times but certainly not all of the time.

In some cases the taxpayer is conceptually right but at fault due to an innocent oversight or because of ignorance of the law. In such cases I tend to go right down to the wire to try to assist. However, in other cases the mistakes and omissions in the tax returns are so blatant that one cannot but try to convince the erring taxpayer that his omissions from the tax return were obvious, if not also purposely left out. Some people reluctantly understand and acknowledge their mistake, while others either cannot understand or do not want to admit default. In such cases one tries to explain what the situation is and endeavors to soften the medicine’s bad taste.

However the remedy can be costly when one adds on to the tax due both the interest and penalties set out by law.

Once again the time has come to declare our income for basis year 2004 – an annual but not so pleasurable duty. Tax-payers are also bound to effect balance of payments due by 30 June 2005.

Where a tax return needs to be filed, as opposed to the Simple Declaration, each tax payer will be informed – on page four of the return – of any payments made on account of the Tax Department for basis year 2004. This does not include the amount of tax deducted from wages using the final settlement system, which amount would have been advised to each employee by his employer.

I believe that the taxpayer should be alerted to the fact that the Inland Revenue Department is informed of any interest payable locally upon which the 15 per cent tax at source has not been deducted.

Furthermore, in the case of the sale of property which is not exempt from the payment of capital gains tax or upon which a final five per cent or seven per cent tax has been paid according to the different provisions at law, the tax payer has to declare such income in the appropriate section and attach to the tax return an analysis showing the calculations as to how he/she arrived at the amount of taxable income.

An omission of declaration of income, notwithstanding that one could have been exempted from paying provisional capital gains tax, still subjects the taxpayer who opts not to declare such income, to the penalties set out by law. Such statements/declarations are not the responsibility of a notary but rather that of an accountant who is better versed in the workings and provisions of capital gains tax laws. Any advice to the contrary is totally wrong and unacceptable.

I believe that if citizens were more exact in their tax declarations, there would be much more peace of mind at the end of the exercise.