Latest news with #InlandRevenue
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Member (IR-Operations): Iqbal given additional charge
ISLAMABAD: Following retirement of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Member Inland Revenue (Operations) Dr Hamid Ateeq Sarwar, the FBR has given additional charge to the post of Member Inland Revenue (Operations) to Mohammad Iqbal, FBR Member Administration. According to a notification issued by the FBR on Monday, No 1689-IR-I/2025 Mohammad Iqbal, a BS-22 officer of Inland Revenue Service presently posted as Member (Admin/HR), Federal Board of Revenue (HQ), Islamabad is assigned additional charge of the post of Member (IR-Operations), FBR (HQ), Islamabad in addition to his own duties, with immediate effect as per rules, the notification added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
KiwiSaver hardship reveals hidden cost of this economic downturn
We had news last week that KiwiSaver members withdrew more than $470 million for hardship reasons in the past 12 months amid continuing economic stress. Inland Revenue figures showed $470.7m was taken out of KiwiSaver in the June financial year, up 56.6% from $300.5m over the prior period. Looking back through the figures, there has certainly been a big spike in withdrawals in the past two years, but they have been on the rise for several years. Since Covid, both the number of people withdrawing funds and the amount withdrawn have risen steadily. As a barometer of the general economic situation, that isn't great. But the bigger problem with these hardship withdrawals is that the ultimate cost is (quite literally) compounded through the years. More than $1.3 billion of KiwiSaver funds has been withdrawn for hardship reasons in the past five years. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations and assume this money could have earned around 7% returns for the next 20 years, then we get a figure of more than $5b that will be missing from the nation's pool of retirement funds by 2045. Given the current trend of withdrawals, I suspect this is a conservative estimate. I understand why we allow withdrawals for hardship. It doesn't make sense for people to lose their homes or to go hungry when they have thousands of dollars sitting in a KiwiSaver account, so I'm not advocating that we stop allowing the withdrawals. However, there is a hidden cost and the situation highlights just how crucial it is for the Government to put more focus on retirement savings. There is a lot more money coming out of the KiwiSaver scheme to fund people into their first homes. Since Covid hit, an average of about $1.2b a year has been withdrawn from KiwiSaver for first home purchases. A home is an asset at least, and home ownership is an important step on the path to financial independence. I suspect we just have to accept the first home buyer withdrawals as a feature of the KiwiSaver scheme. If young people are in the scheme from the start of their working life and have $10,000 or $20,000 to put towards a house deposit, they are probably ahead of where many in my generation were at the same age. But the reality is that as a nation, we're well behind on where we need to be with our retirement savings. According to Stats NZ projections, the percentage of the population aged 65+ will increase from roughly 16-17% in the early 2020s to about 19-20% by 2030. By 2050, around 24-26% of New Zealanders are expected to be 65+. The old-age dependency ratio (ratio of elderly to working-age population) is expected to nearly double between 2020 and 2050. Our annual superannuation bill already comes in at more than $20b, and Treasury has projected that to rise to about $45b by 2037. According to Budget 2025 data, New Zealand Superannuation costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person). From the Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. It is also rising as a percentage of the Government's total tax revenue – from about 17% now, it is projected to rise above 21% by 2037. So we know we have a problem. It seems almost certain that the age of superannuation will have to be raised to 67 in the coming years – despite the current opposition of NZ First and Labour. Future governments will almost certainly come under more pressure to means-test. KiwiSaver, which currently has total funds of $122b, is one of our great hopes. But the total figure is flattering. There are more than three million KiwiSaver members so the average fund size is just $37,000. Hopefully, that will be skewed by a lot of young people who will see their savings grow dramatically in the next decades. That brings us back to the downside of withdrawing funds early for hardship, though. We need to be saving more, not less. Moves by the Government to lift the default contribution rate for both employees and employers to 4% from April 2028 were a step in the right direction. However, they pale in comparison to Australia's compulsory scheme, which requires 12% employer contributions. The scheme has the equivalent of $4.5 trillion invested, making Australia the fifth-largest holder of pension fund assets in the world, not per capita but in nominal terms. Australia, for the record, also allows people to withdraw funds for hardship, but one suspects fewer people there need to. If we want to make the most of the KiwiSaver scheme we have, we need to look more closely at who is withdrawing their money and why. Meanwhile, young Kiwis are voting with their feet and joining the Australian Superannuation scheme ... by virtue of moving to work there. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
SC rejects Commissioner IR's plea against LHC order
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of Commissioner Inland Revenue against the Lahore High Court (LHC) order, saying the findings on facts does not suffer from any illegality or error. The petitioner department had assailed the LHC, Rawalpindi bench's order dated 26.03.2025, whereby, reference application filed under Section 47 of the Sales Tax 1990 by the petitioner against the order dated 4.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Islamabad, was dismissed. A two-judge bench of Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi heard Commissioner Inland Revenue's appeal. The court noted that the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue in the instant case, against the respondents (M/s Mustafa Enterprises) are based on vague and frivolous allegations and certain conclusions have been made on mere presumptions only, whereas, no material or evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. The court further noted that while passing the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeded his jurisdiction while travelling beyond the very premises and the allegations made in the show cause notice, whereas, the respondents were never confronted with any such allegations or entries as reflected in the bank statement which were subsequently furnished by the respondents, showing the details of the total amount and the particulars of suppliers from whom purchases were made. It observed that while initiating the proceedings against the respondents, there was no material or evidence available on record to make out a case against the respondents of illegal or inadmissible claim of input tax adjustment, whereas, the entire proceedings and the Order-in-Original passed in the instant case was based on presumptions, whereas, no inquiry or verification was made by the department in respect of alleged fake/flying invoices. The SC judgment said that the ATIR and the Division Bench of LHC were justified to set aside both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, while recording concurrent findings on facts which does not suffer from any illegality or error. The proceedings in the instant matter were initiated by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Unit-IV Cantt Zone RTO, Rawalpindi vide show cause notice dated 10.08.2021, whereby, the respondents were required to submit the record to prove as to whether the purchases made for the (Tax Period July 2019 to June 2020) amounting to Rs323,722,601 against which an amount of Rs55,032,846 was claimed as input tax, were actually made by them. It was further alleged in the show-cause notice that the record submitted by the respondents does not prove as to whether such purchases were actually made by the respondents during subject period, therefore, they have also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 73 of the Act. It was concluded that respondents did not purchase any coal from the local suppliers and unlawfully claimed input tax on the basis of fake/ flying invoices issued by the dubious suppliers, therefore, caused loss to the national exchequer to the tune of Rs55,032,846 by violating the provisions 6,7,8,22,23,26 and 73 read with Section 2(37) of the Act. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
FBR extends tax returns filing deadline to Aug 4
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has extended the date of submission of Sales Tax and Federal Excise Return for the tax period of June, 2025 up to August 4, 2025. This is subject to the condition that due sales tax liability has been deposited within due date. In this regard, the FBR has issued instructions to Chief Commissioners Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Offices (LTOs), Medium Taxpayers Offices (MTOs), Corporate Tax Offices (CTOs) and Regional Tax Offices (RTOs) on Thursday. KTBA requests FBR to extend e-filing deadline In exercise of the powers conferred under section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and section 43 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, the FBR has directed that the date of submission of Sales Tax and Federal Excise Return for the tax period of June, 2025 which was due on July 18, 2025 and extended to August 4, 2025 subject to the condition that due sales tax liability has been deposited within due date, FBR added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The Sun
6 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Anwar, govt succeed in removing names from Mukhriz's RM5m tax case
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the government succeeded today in having their names removed from a judicial review application filed by Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir. Mukhriz is challenging the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) issuance of additional tax assessment notices for the years 2017 to 2019, demanding payment of over RM5 million. High Court Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh allowed the application by Anwar, in his capacity as Finance Minister, and the government to strike out their names as respondents in the judicial review proceedings. However, the court dismissed their bid to expunge several paragraphs in Mukhriz's affidavit that made reference to both respondents, and fixed Dec 16 for the hearing of the substantive judicial review application. On Jan 2, Judge Amarjeet granted leave for Mukhriz to commence judicial review proceedings, having found that the case raised arguable grounds. Earlier, senior federal counsel Nur Irmawatie Daud, representing both the second and third respondents, argued that the additional assessment notices were issued by the first respondent, the Inland Revenue's chief executive officer or director-general. 'The judicial review application is scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of court process,' she submitted. However, Mukhriz's counsel, Syed Afiq Syed Albakri, contended that the second respondent had influenced the first respondent in the issuance of the said notices against his client. Mukhriz, 60, filed the judicial review application on Dec 20 last year, naming the IRB's CEO or Director-General, Anwar and the government as the first to third respondents respectively. The businessman sought an order to quash the decision of the first respondent to issue additional assessment notices for the years 2017 to 2019, amounting to RM5,020,707.18, on the grounds that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The Pejuang president also sought a declaration that the imposition of penalties under Section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967 was null and void, as well as ultra vires. The former Kedah Menteri Besar further sought a declaration that the second respondent (Anwar) had abused his powers in causing the first respondent (the government) to issue the said notices. Finally, he sought a declaration that the second respondent had similarly abused his powers in directing the issuance of a certificate under subsection 104(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967. - Bernama
