tax

Nigeria earned N3.72 trillion from royalties and petroleum profit tax, PPT, in the oil and gas sector in 2018, according to data obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN. The CBN, in its Economic Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2018, stated that the amount the country earned from royalties and PPT in 2018 represented an improvement of 106.7 per cent compared to N1.8 trillion recorded in 2017. Analysis of the report showed that the amount earned from royalties and PPT from the petroleum industry in 2018 represented 40.9 per cent of the 2018 budget of N9.1 trillion and 42.6 per cent of the N8.73 trillion budget proposals for 2019. Nigerian Further analysis showed that royalties and PPT revenue represented 153.2 per cent, 61.2 per cent and 43.2 per cent of capital, recurrent and total allocation in the 2018 budget respectively, while in the 2019 budget proposals, PPT and royalties represented 168.8 per cent, 54.8 per cent and 42.1 per cent of capital, recurrent and total allocations respectively. In the 2018 budget, N2.4 trillion was budgeted for capital expenditure; N6.07 trillion was earmarked for recurrent expenditure, while total allocation was N8.61 trillion. In the 2019 budget, capital and recurrent expenditures stood at N2.032 trillion and N6.79 trillion respectively, while total allocation stood at N8.83 trillion. Royalties and PPT, according to the report, accounted for 67.22 per cent of total gross oil revenue of N5.54 trillion recorded in 2018. Meanwhile, the Nigeria conducted its first importation of gasoline, also known as Premium Motor Spirit, PMS, of51,000 metric tonnes (MT) from China in January, according to a report, yesterday, by global energy data firm, S&P Global Platts. Platts, in the report obtained from China’s General Administration, said this was Nigeria’s first import of petrol from China. Platts noted in the report that Nigeria was the fourth largest buyer of Chinese gasoline in January, and was also the only buyer outside Asia last month. It added that Nigeria was the second country in Africa to have received gasoline from China gasoline, with the first being Togo that got 50,000 mt of gasoline in April 2018. The report noted that PetroChina, China’s largest gasoline exporter, had in 2018 set up an office in Nigeria, which could possibly point to the first gasoline cargo landing in the country. Platts disclosed that China’s gasoil exports to African countries also continued to grow, with Mozambique and South Africa climbing to the top 10 destinations in January, receiving 147,000 mt and 82,000 mt of gasoil, respectively. Source: Vanguard

The Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in Abuja recently gave a judgement in favour of Theodak Nigeria Limited  (TNL or “the Company” or “the plaintiff”) in its lawsuit against the Federal Inland Revenue Service  (FIRS or “the defendant”). The issue for determination was whether the FIRS had statutory power to deem the value of the Company’s property to be its turnover for any year of assessment (and impose income tax thereon) based on the provision of Section 30 of the Companies Income Tax (CIT) Act, Cap. C21, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004.   Background The Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in Abuja recently gave a judgement in favour of Theodak Nigeria Limited  (TNL or “the Company” or “the plaintiff”) in its lawsuit against the Federal Inland Revenue Service  (FIRS or “the defendant”). The issue for determination was whether the FIRS had statutory power to deem the value of the Company’s property to be its turnover for any year of assessment (and impose income tax thereon) based on the provision of Section 30 of the Companies Income Tax (CIT) Act, Cap. C21, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004. Background Generally, CIT is payable on the profits of a company “accruing in, derived from, brought into or received in Nigeria1” in respect of any trade or business that may have been carried on. The CIT Act requires every company to file its tax returns for every year on a self-assessment basis, containing the amounts of profits from every source, with the FIRS. Section 30 of CIT Act empowers the FIRS to assess a company on a fair and reasonable percentage of the turnover from its trade or business where either the business produces no assessable profits; where the assessable profits are less than might be expected to be, or where the true assessable profits cannot be ascertained.   Facts of the case and issues for determination The FIRS alleged that the Company did not file its income tax returns for 2015 and thereby failed to pay its income tax liability for that year. Hence, the FIRS invoked the provisions of Section 30(1)(a) of the CIT Act by deeming 20% of the ascertained value of a property admitted to be owned by the Company to be the CIT payable, and issued its assessment notice for the amount.   Dissatisfied with the FIRS’ action, TNL filed an appeal at the FHC arguing that:  Section 30(1)(a) of the CIT Act does not empower the FIRS to assess the value of its property to CIT the foregoing CIT Act provision provides for assessments to be based on a fair percentage of the turnover of a trade or business and  the value of a company’s property is not listed as taxable income in Section 9 of the CIT Act. Thus, the Company urged the FHC to declare that the value of its building was not the same as its turnover, and that the FIRS’ action was ultra vires its statutory powers under the CIT Act. Thus, the Company urged the FHC to declare that the value of its building was not the same as its turnover, and that the FIRS’ action was ultra vires its statutory powers under the CIT Act. The plaintiff also prayed the FHC to set aside the FIRS’ assessment and restrain the defendant from enforcing the recovery of the alleged tax liability. The FIRS, on its part, argued that Section 30(1)(a) of the CIT Act gave it a wide range of power to assess delinquent taxpayers to tax, and therefore had the statutory power to impose its best of judgment assessment on TNL based on the value of the Company’s property. This was on the ground that TNL had failed to file its tax returns despite several notices issued by the FIRS. The defendant also argued that the assessment was final and conclusive because the plaintiff failed to object within 30 days as provided by the CIT Act. The plaintiff also prayed the FHC to set aside the FIRS’ assessment and restrain the defendant from enforcing the recovery of the alleged tax liability. The FIRS, on its part, argued that Section 30(1)(a) of the CIT Act gave it a wide range of power to assess delinquent taxpayers to tax, and therefore had the statutory power to impose its best of judgment assessment on TNL based on the value of the Company’s property. This was on the ground that TNL had failed to file its tax returns despite several notices issued by the FIRS. The defendant also argued that the assessment was final and conclusive because the plaintiff failed to object within 30 days as provided by the CIT Act.   Decision After considering the arguments of both parties, the FHC held that: The FIRS did not act within the boundaries of Section 30(1) of the CITA in assessing the Company to tax on the basis of the value of its property. Section 30 only empowers the FIRS to assess a company to tax on a fair and reasonable percentage of its turnover, and that turnover refers to the aggregate income that a business receives from its normal business activities for a given period, usually from the sale of goods and services. Hence, the value of the Company’s property is not the same as its turnover or income.     It would be unfair to deem the value of the Company’s property as its turnover for the year of assessment, and the FIRS’ act of unilaterally assessing the value of the Company’s property was oppressive and ultra vires. The Company was not under any obligation to object to the FIRS before it could challenge the assessment in court. The use of the word “may” in Section 69(1) of the CIT Act makes it discretionary for the plaintiff to object to the FIRS’ assessment, and failing which the Company could not be denied the right of access to court as conferred by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of