The Commissioner General (CG) of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) is again in the news. This time, he is reported to have decided not to proceed to give evidence in the trial of the Kaieteur News publisher who was charged by the Police for issuing threatening language to the CG in a telephone conversation with him.
The CG issued a statement subsequently in which he maintained that the publisher had threatened him but contended that the delay by the authorities in laying charges and the “negative attention” the case had drawn, have influenced his decision not to pursue the matter. He expressed the hope that the GRA would be removed from the spotlight, as “the staff were beginning to feel the fatigue from the excessive public attention”. The CG further stated that because of the delay, there was a perception that there might be some difficulty in pursuing the charges with possible negative implications, and that in view of the manner in which the issue was pursued in the media no public good can be served. He added that the GRA has a greater public interest to serve in time in ensuring that it fulfills its mandate in the assessment and collection of tax revenues.
Need for a display of quiet competence
It is good that the CG has chosen this course of action. One hopes that he will now devote greater energies to carry out assessments of those who flaunt unexplained wealth with impunity. He does not have to look far to notice the lifestyles of certain individuals, including the expensive motor vehicles they are driving and the mansions they live in, not to mention the massive structures that are going up in Georgetown and elsewhere.
The CG has several tools at his disposal to investigate the sources of income of these individuals and businesses to ascertain whether they are paying their fair share of taxes. One such tool is the issuing of arbitrary assessments based on net worth analyses with a view to forcing taxpayers who have been suspected of under-declaring their income to revise their declarations. The CG’s most recent statement that he is not interested in investigating the local businessman who was nabbed by the US authorities with US$620,000 in undeclared currency is, however, not encouraging. His somewhat arrogant and dismissive response to an enquiry from a reporter must be viewed against the background that the US tax authorities may be coming to Guyana to carrying out their own investigations. One wonders what the CG will tell the IRS officials when they visit him at his Camp Street office.
For too long the CG has been making public statements that are truly the preserve of the political directorate. He also gave the appearance of not being accountable to anyone, notwithstanding his reporting relationship to the GRA’s board. Instead of displaying quiet competence as the chief tax collector of the country, the CG has chosen to be a high profile public official comparable to, if not greater than, some Ministers of the Government, Members of Parliament and holders of constitutional positions. One expects elected officials to be in the news regularly to keep their constituents informed about what they are doing as an integral part of accountability arrangements to them.
The CG is, however, an appointed official with internal accountability arrangements. As such, he has to be extremely careful when making public statements, if at all. He must display the highest degree of professionalism in the discharge of his responsibilities, given the confidential nature of his work. Indeed, it is a serious indictment for the Board to have allowed the CG to operate over the years the way he did. His actions of always trying to be in the news and seemingly picking a fight with anyone who offers the slightest criticism of the organization, regardless of how well-intentioned, has caused serious damage to the GRA and to the morale of the staff. It is obvious that in some point in time the CG’s actions will have negative consequences and will put the GRA at serious risk. Now that the damage has been done, it will take a long time and considerable effort to repair such damage whenever he demits office either by choice or otherwise.
Confidentiality of taxpayers’ affairs
Confidentiality is a fundamental principle in administering the tax affairs of citizens, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that citizens honour their obligations of paying taxes assessed and attributable to them, instead of going public. This is reinforced by Section 23 (1) the GRA Act which reads:
No person shall, without the consent in writing given by or on behalf of the Authority, publish or disclose to any person other than in the course of his duties , or when lawfully required to do so by any court or under any law, the contents of any document, communication or information whatsoever, which relates to , and which has come to his attention in the course of his duties under this Act
The penalties for violating the above are, upon conviction: (a) a fine of up to G$200,000; and (b) imprisonment of up to five years. Given all the negative publicity about him and the organization he heads, one hopes that the CG will use the opportunity to reflect on his actions and press the reset button, given whatever time he has left with the GRA.
The CG’s appointment
In one of my columns, I had mentioned that although the CG has retired from the public service, he continues to function in that position on a contractual basis without any break in service. I raised this as a matter of principle and I compared the practice prevailing at the United Nations with what obtains in Guyana. It is public knowledge that certain officials are allowed to retire, collect their handsome retirement benefits, and are then taken back on a contractual basis at enhanced compensation packages the very next day. I am unable to find evidence of this practice in other countries.
There are two issues here that we may wish to consider. The first is as a nation State, can we really afford a situation where high ranking officials receive as much as two-thirds of their closing salaries as monthly pensions while at the same time enjoying enhanced salaries and other conditions of service? As indicated in that column, at the United Nations, there are restrictions as to the period of time for which a retiree is rehired; otherwise his/her pension is forfeited. The retiree simply cannot enjoy both a salary and a pension at the same time for an extended period of time. Besides, he/she cannot occupy an authorised position. The CG sought to question my reference to the United Nations and pointed out that his appointment was in accordance with the GRA. But should we not look at what international organizations are doing to guide us in terms of best practice?
The second issue relates to succession planning. Let me give an example. My predecessor at the Audit Office, Mr. Pat Farnum, now deceased, realized years before his retirement that he needed to groom someone to take over from him. He could not find the person internally, so he began looking outside the Audit Office. He recruited a Deputy three years before he (Mr. Farnum) was due to retire and gave him all the guidance and supervision so that at the point of his retirement Mr. Farnum had no difficulty in recommending his Deputy to fill the position of Auditor General. The point is, did the GRA not have a succession plan?
In true fashion, the Commissioner-General penned a letter to the editor, stating that he was distressed that even though he had offered a public clarification on the matter, I chose to provide my own “misguided views” and suggested that my action was “tantamount to mischief and deceitfulness”! He then went on with his usual tirade about my unfamiliarity of the GRA Act, before stating that he was appointed by the GRA Board with the approval of the Minister. There is, however, no reference in the GRA Act that would allow the CG, or any other officer, to be retained beyond his/her retirement age under a new employment arrangement.
Section 32 of the Act provides for the Minister to make regulations relating to, among others: (a) conditions of service, including pensions, gratuities and other retirement benefits; (b) prescribing procedures for the appointment of employees and officers; and (c) code of conduct and discipline. However, I have searched the GRA website and was unable to find any such regulations. Perhaps such regulations exist but the website might not have been updated. It is regrettable the CG did not grasp the bigger picture relating to governance and took the issue of his re-employment personally.
Finally, the CG is a member of the ACCA and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana (ICAG). He is therefore bound by professional conduct rules promulgated by these two bodies. A complaint has been lodged with these two bodies as regards allegations of a breach of the confidentiality rules but the CG has claimed that the ICAG does not have the authority to investigate him!
