Who Needs to file Income Tax Return?

Image result for become filer pak

You need to file your annual Income Tax Return in Pakistan if you fall within the ambit of any of the following:

  1.   Registered Taxpayers (NTN holders)
  2.   Those charged tax in tax years 2015, 2016
  3.   Welfare Institutions or NPOs (defined in ITO 2001)
  4.   Annual (non-business) income of PKR 400,000 or more
  5.   Annual business income of PKR 300,000 or more
  6.   All companies with financial (accounts) closure of before 31st December 2016
  7.   Owners of 250 sq yards  or more land or flat of any size within    Cantt/Municipal/ICT jurisdiction
  8.   Owners of 500 sq yards  or more land (outside Cantt/Municipal/ICT jurisdiction)
  9.   Flat Owners of 2000 sq ft or more covered area
  10.   Owners of vehicles over 1000cc
  11.   Anyone sent notice(s) to file return

Here are some of the major financial benefits of filing your Income Tax Return

Want to file your Income Tax Return?

Contact us now for:

Best quality services by top professionals including:

qualified lawyers,

chartered and chartered certified accountants,

chartered financial analysts and

tax experts

Millennium Law & Corporate Company (MLCC)

(the pioneer ACCA practising firm in Pakistan)

Bashir Mansion, 2 Turner Road, Adjacent AG Office, Lahore

Call: 042-37242434 / 0322-4219292 (prefer text),  Email: ozmeer@mlcc.pk

Minimum & Banking Transactions’ Tax

The following article has been published in Daily Nation, dated 27th July 2015

(E-Paper (Print Edition)http://nation.com.pk/E-Paper/lahore/2015-07-27/page-9)

(Onlinehttp://nation.com.pk/business/27-Jul-2015/minimum-banking-transactions-tax)

Minimum & Banking Transactions’ Tax

By: Omer Zaheer Meer

With the stated aims of supporting the entrepreneurship culture, facilitating businesses and increasing the numbers within the ambit of formally documented economy, one would expect steps by policymakers to incentivize the masses to this effect. Notwithstanding several positive developments, some recent steps have actually served in contradiction of the above aims of the incumbent Government.

Before diving into the specifics let’s briefly discuss some important building blocks. First of all, most of the modern economies have moved away from been solely or greatly based upon agriculture or manufacturing to a greater focus on service sector, then be it financial, IT, educational, telecommunication or other services within this sector. Even those with a large base of agriculture or manufacturing have modernized to include service industry as a significant part of their overall GDP. It is therefore essential for a successful modern economy to promote service sector with the underlying GDP growth and employment opportunities acting as prime motivators. Similarly in a country like ours where, as per some studies, the black monies and illegal economy outweigh the documented formal one, reforms are required to incentivize people to come within the ambit of documented economy.

With the above been clarified let us move onto some extremely important issues with serious ramifications for our economy. First up a minimum tax on service companies has been levied from fiscal year 2015-16. But what does a minimum tax mean? For our tax dilettante readers, it means that the advance tax paid by service companies will not be refunded in the event of them ending up in losses at the financial year end. This is not only unjust but would have serious negative implications for the service sector growth. Moreover it also has the potential to entice this sector towards “creative accounting” to avoid paying any more taxes then the minimum they have to since they will not be getting any refunds due to them in the past in their hour of need.

This “creative accounting” argument was actually floated as an initial reason for attempting to introduce the minimum tax on service sector several years ago under pressure from international lenders. This was done in a controversial manner despite an existing section of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 already dealing with the minimum tax on companies. The matter led to serious misgivings from the tax payers and after long heated debates the last finance bill included a proposal to restore the original position before the controversial insertion in section 153. The original position was that any tax paid in advance was adjustable against the final tax liability. Unfortunately at the last moment the policy makers again succumbed to certain pressures and instead introduced the minimum tax. In doing so the long term impact on tax net and GDP growth was ignored in favor of the short term cash accumulation to meet annual targets.

Several responsible officials have shared in private that this amendment was based on the underlying assertion that all mobile companies, a sub-sector within the service industry, were preparing falsified accounting records to avoid due tax and thereby causing losses to the national exchequer. Even if we accept the notion, this observation was based upon a sub-sector only and it was therefore inherently unjustified to “punish” an entire sector for that. Moreover this was equal to declaring that since some- murderers are able to deceive with the judicial system therefore all accused from now on would have a body part amputated as a presumed minimum punishment. Not very just, is it?

Instead an overhaul of the system with effective implementation along-with introduction of stringent penal clauses would have served the purpose more effectively. Last but not the least, even the existing audit provision, if implemented properly was sufficient to deal with the problem. We therefore propose and expect the policy makers to review this matter positively with a strategic view of expanding the GDP and broadening the tax-base rather than diminishing it. Volume over margin is the way forward for a progressive taxation regime.

Next up is perhaps the most controversial issue of the imposition of advance tax on banking transactions by non-filers. After a lot of uproar from the business community, the negotiations with finance ministry officials resulted in the concession that the levy of 0.6 percent withholding tax was reduced to 0.3 percent till end of September 2015. Any non-filers after that date would be liable to the rate of 0.6 percent again. However, a section of business community has rejected this and is planning to force a change by strikes and protests.

While the underlying aim seems fairly positive in that the non-filers are incentivized to come within the ambit of documented economy, there are certain qualifications to that. Firstly many individuals particularly salaried ones get their tax deducted at source and as such do not file income tax returns. This is despite them paying more than their due shares of taxes if all the indirect taxes on their consumption are taken into account. A lack of awareness and the bureaucratic difficulties within our taxation apparatus are the biggest reason for this trend. Secondly the lack of trust in the authorities and Governments by the business community is a big barrier.

Some of the concerns leading to the lack of trust are seemingly genuine and warrant corrective actions. A case in point is the undue relief given to influential tax payers while the ordinary one having to waste material resources in order to get their genuine rights like refunds due to them. Moreover the undue nuances caused to even genuine businessmen by certain elements within the taxation apparatus cements the belief that it’s beneficial to stay out of the system to avoid these troubles. Moreover taxing every transaction over Rs. 50,000 at 0.6%, when aggregated, takes the total cost to inexplicable levels making it attractive to avoid banking channels for those not bound to. The crux is that trying to impose a reform like taxing banking transactions without addressing the inherent limitations and problems of the taxation system may not be the most effective way to address the issue of widening the tax-net and should be re-considered.

The author is Director of the think-tank “Millat Thinkers’ Forum”. He is a leading economist, CFA Charterholder, experienced fellow Chartered Certified Accountant and anti-money laundering expert with international exposure who can be reached on Twitter and www.myMFB.com @OmerZaheerMeer or omerzaheermeer@hotmail.co.uk

Finance Act 2015-16: Dissecting major reforms – II

The following article has been published in Daily Nation, dated 21st July 2015

(E-Paper (Print Edition)http://nation.com.pk/E-Paper/lahore/2015-07-21/page-9)

(Onlinehttp://nation.com.pk/business/21-Jul-2015/finance-act-2015-16-dissecting-major-reforms-part-ii)

Finance Act 2015-16: Dissecting major reforms – II

Prof Dp

By: Omer Zaheer Meer

We’ll continue to discuss some important reforms carrying on from where we left in the first part on the above topic on 13th July and conclude the write-up today. The need for a structural overhaul has been lauded for years now. While many concrete proposals for reforms continue to fall on deaf ears, a few have been implemented in the finance act. This indeed is commendable and something to expand upon.

In our budget proposals we have suggested the relevant authorities to allow the use of CNIC as both the NTN (National Tax Number) and STRN (Sales Tax Registration Number) on these pages. Section 181 has now declared that for individuals the CNIC will be used as the NTN. Although it is only for individuals as of now but it is a step in the right direction. By removing the hurdles in tax registrations by allowing the above mentioned proposal not only can the FBR expand the tax-net but also assist in promoting the entrepreneur culture by removing unnecessary formalities.

Similarly another positive reform has been introduced in section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The requirement of obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner for filing a revised return is now dispensed away with if the revised return is filed within 60 days of filing of the original return. This would remove the long-standing complaint of many tax payers faced when a genuine mistake resulted in tax losses to them.

Yet another change introduced via Finance Act 2015-16 is regarding the income earned from property. Now, any expenditure incurred whether wholly or exclusively for the purposes of deriving rental income including the administration and collection charges shall be admissible as allowable expense with a cap of 6% of rent chargeable. While it’s a positive move it is certainly not sufficient considering the levels of inflation increasing the repairs and maintenance as well employee costs.

Moving onto another significant change we’ll briefly discuss Section 37A and Division VII of Part 1 of the First Schedule dealing with Capital Gains Tax on securities disposed off. A revised status of tax on Capital Gains on disposal of ‘securities’ under section 37A has been prescribed as below:

         Holding period                            Tax Year

                                                            2016     2015

  • < 12 months                               15%      12.5%
  • 12 months to < 24 months          12.5%   10%
  • 24 months to < 48 months            7.5%     0%
  • > 48 months                                  0%        0%

This revision is multi-dimensional. Firstly the rates have been revised upwardly while at the same time the holding period for taxable gains has also been increased. This enhancement of holding period will effectively apply retrospectively as gains for holding period between 24 to 48 months which were exempt from tax prior to Finance Act 2015 will now fall under taxable incidence. The motivation for this is to incentivize investors to hold onto their investments for longer while at the same time trying to balance off avoiding disillusioning the small investor. How much has the finance ministry succeeded in this will only be reliably known with the passage of time and the results of the stock markets.

Next up is an extremely important issue with serious ramifications. Minimum tax on service companies is that hotly contested issue. Under pressure from international lenders, Government of Pakistan decided to introduce a controversial insertion in section 153 few years back. The way this was done raised serious questions as there were arguments that despite an existing section dealing with the issue the insertion was done against the prescribed way and even leaving the existing provisions intact, hence creating a gulf of confusion. Furthermore a series of conflicting SROs were then issued further complicating the matter.

As per the insertion introduced, despite the existing section 113 dealing with minimum tax on service companies, the corporate service companies were made liable to a minimum tax. What this meant was that even if any company in the sector incurred losses they’d not be able to claim a refund of any tax already paid by them. The reason this is problematic is that service companies particularly during startup years are susceptible to losses. This led to calls of review and resulted in Clause 79 in Part IV of the Second Schedule being added to clarify the matter and declare that minimum tax would not be liable on service companies. The implication was in effect from tax year 2012 onwards.

The initial proposal in finance bill 2015 was to clarify the matter since 2009 but instead the government decided to introduce the minimum tax on service companies from tax year 2015 onwards while the clause 79 mentioned above was also deleted. This has led to serious reservations by corporate sector and is part of the package being negotiated between finance ministry officials and traders.

Furthermore a minimum tax of 2% has been levied on land developers. This 2% shall be levied on the value of the land as notified by the authorities for stamp duty. This would increase the revenues for the exchequer and can be seen as an indication of the policy direction.

We hope that the policy makers would also consider our other proposals in future budgets for the betterment of economy and that these write-ups have been enlightening to our readers. We shall continue to apprise our readers on relevant developments in the future too.

The author is Director of the think-tank “Millat Thinkers’ Forum”. He is a leading economist, CFA Charterholder, experienced fellow Chartered Certified Accountant and anti-money laundering expert with international exposure who can be reached on Twitter and www.myMFB.com @OmerZaheerMeer or omerzaheermeer@hotmail.co.uk

Pak economy: curing cancer with anti-fever medicines?

The following article has been published in Daily Nation, dated 4th May 2015

(E-Paper (Print Edition)http://nation.com.pk/E-Paper/lahore/2015-05-04/page-9)

(Onlinehttp://nation.com.pk/business/04-May-2015/pak-economy-curing-cancer-with-anti-fever-medicines)

Pak Economy: Curing Cancer with Anti-Fever Medicines?

 Prof Dp

By: Omer Zaheer Meer

Due to some personal engagements, a write-up dated 22nd March 2015 by Mr. Ejaz Wasti, a gentleman working for finance ministry, questioning my 16th March 2015 article published in The Nation, titled “IMF-Driven policies: Destroying Economy & inciting revolts?” missed my attention. Recently it was brought to my notice. The initial thought was to let it be but the lack of substance all but forced this scribe to pen this piece in the hopes that it may be taken not as a rebuttal but as constructive feedback aimed at helping the decision makers improve for the betterment of our beloved Pakistan. For, while we appreciate the positive endeavors of our policy makers as evident from the past articles of this writer, pointing out the shortcomings is also our moral obligation.

Unfortunately Mr. Wasti ignored important questions raised in the original article of 16th March and instead focused on inking a column seemed to have been compiled in a rush. What’s more tragic is that just days afterwards the denial penned by the gentleman, World Bank as well as Asian Development Bank issued damning reports vindicating this writers’ perspective while blowing off the lid of the misconstrued arguments of the finance ministry employee/consultant. It’d therefore be surprising to see how any neutral economist could possibly justify the worst growth rate in the region even below the likes of Afghanistan and Bhutan as outlined by the above mentioned reports?

It’s tragic that the stats often shared by certain quarters of the ministry reminds us of Mr. Shaukat Aziz who pursued similar gimmicks, building an economy on a bubble rather than on solid foundations of increasing GNP and GDP by focusing on national output. Remember, Shaukat’s bubble got busted not long after the end of his Government. This time around we don’t want a similar “feat” from a Government famous for its economic achievements.

Coming back to the 16th March write-up, some of the major questions were left unanswered including the fact that why the whole 500 billion payment to IPPs was made in one go without ensuring the availability of the loudly trumpeted “40%” unused capacity? Why the payment of this huge sum was not done in installments with ensuring availability of additional capacity in the national power system at the release of each tranche, particularly considering Pakistan went to IMF for a $ 6.7 billion installment based bailout package, 75% of which was paid to IPPs?

Furthermore, I humbly dare to question why has the circular debt again reached Rs. 600 billion, surpassing the previous level? Would it not have been better to focus on structural reforms and cutting the line losses as proposed earlier by this writer instead of treating it as a matter of wounded ego?

Furthermore as to the claims of adding 1700 MW “additional” capacity in the system by “IPPs”, can Wasti provide any evidence to this since it has not even been claimed by the IPPs or even the finance ministry represented by him. Having said that, the claims of forensic audits and verification by Ministry of the huge payments are commendable and should be released to the public, but the question of bypassing AG office was still left unanswered.

Next the scribe from finance ministry referred to income tax notices issued with the aim to broaden the tax base. Perhaps he should spare some time to check the ground realities. Never mind, let us try to assist our decision makers here.

Recently notices claiming no existing tax registration based on “economic activities”, usually citing vehicle purchases were sent out to masses. Sounds good? Hang on, what if it’s shared with you that many of those receiving these notices were not only tax payers already registered but paying millions in Income Taxes annually? This exemplifies a total lack of coordination within the systems and functions of FBR. Missing out on the records already held by FBR simply reinforces the misconceptions that Government policies are to bother the already registered tax payers and not to act as a facilitator or initiator of genuine drives to catch tax evaders. Instead of helping the underlying objective, the manner in which this drive is performed is actually pushing genuine tax payers on the brink of undesirable actions.

What’s tragic is that while on one hand such steps are undertaken citing the need to broaden the tax base but on the other hand proposals with huge potential to achieve a larger tax base such as brining agricultural income within the tax net as well as allowing use of CNIC as National Tax Numbers (NTN) and Sales Tax Registration Numbers (STRN) have been falling on deaf years for almost a decade now. Of late, there has been news that CNIC may finally be allowed as NTN. If done, this will be a step in the right direction.

Similarly the question about the petrol crises was also conveniently ignored. While repeating the point outlined by this writer that the incumbent Government did pass on some of the benefit of reduction in Oil prices in international market owning to political pressures, he again preferred to ignore the question of how much? As per last available data, Government of Pakistan amassed a benefit of $ 2 billion by the price reduction and as per most mainstream studies (as the government has not shared the exact data), not more than a quarter of this was passed on to the people of Pakistan. Perhaps the finance ministry can share exact data about this to enlighten us all in this regard.

To sum it up, let’s examine an extract from my original 16th March article: “While we can give some space to government’s economic team citing the tough challenges they inherited and are facing, what is unfortunate though is that even the steps possible within the ambit of Finance Ministry are not taken ……. the painful but obvious fact remains that the necessary reforms required to revamp the tax system and structures are not been followed either. Instead of extending the tax base by bringing in Agriculture and other exempt areas in the tax net the existing base is being taxed more along-with higher indirect taxes imposed on the common citizen, both of which are disastrous in the long run. Had we actually taken the tough but necessary decision to broaden our tax base and executed proper financial management especially in the power circular debt payment we would not need to go to the IMF. The lack of these reforms has led to exorbitant borrowings, with the internal borrowings alone reaching the mark of a trillion.”

With this, let’s conclude by asking whether those officials representing the present Government will review the IMF driven economic policies and carryout the necessary reforms while providing relief to the ordinary citizens or will they continue to focus more on short-term cosmetic measures without any bearing to the economic condition of a common man? Perhaps even more important is the question whether these officials have the stomach to digest constructive criticism and engage positively to ensure beneficial proposals for the national economy?

Links to both articles are as below:

http://nation.com.pk/business/16-Mar-2015/imf-driven-policies-destroying-economy

http://nation.com.pk/business/22-Mar-2015/pak-economy-the-right-perspective

The author is Director of the think-tank “Millat Thinkers’ Forum”. He is a leading economist, chartered financial analyst, fellow chartered certified accountant and certified anti-money laundering expert with international exposure who can be reached on Twitter and www.myMFB.com @OmerZaheerMeer or omerzaheermeer@hotmail.co.uk