WHAT ABOUT PENSIONERS?

Aug 24, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

We should not complicate the art of governance. Good governance is as simple as ABC and requires basic common sense. Policy-making should be about applying common sense.
For example, if I own a property and I am renting it out to a church, I should not be applying for any waiver of municipal taxes. In this case I am earning income from the rental. Who knows, that rental could be in the sum of millions each year. For all intents and purposes the building in so far as I am concerned is being used for business purposes, because I am renting it for a sum. No waiver should be granted.
If, on the other hand, I have sold it to the church or to someone who is using it for the propagation of religion, then it is for that church or person, not me, to apply for the relevant waiver of rates and taxes. I should not be applying for any waiver in this instance, because common sense should dictate that since its rates and taxes are payable by the owners, then it is only the owners who can be granted relief from such payment.
If I am allowing a church to use a building I own, then the church should compensate me for the rates and taxes. Otherwise, I should pay it. In other words, I am saying that unless a building is owned by a church, rates and taxes should be paid, regardless of what is taking place within.
This is a straightforward and common sense way to deal with the problem that has emerged between the City Council and the subject Minister for local government. There is no need for the Minister to be granting any order waiving any outstanding taxes.
Section 214 of the Municipal and District Councils Act allows the Council to exempt the owner from tax liability for any property used for the advancement of religion, education and social welfare, providing that there is no profit motive.
This is my reading of the relevant sub-section of the Act. In other words, so long as the owner or user accrues a profit by virtue of the use of the building for social welfare, education or religious uses, the taxes cannot be exempted. This section also allows for the exemption of taxes on buildings used for open air games or sports, hospital, dispensary or public health purposes.
These are the only uses for which the owner may be allowed an exemption on rates and taxes.
Section 214 (2) of the said Act allows the Minister to designate any “other property” in which no rates shall be payable. I interpret this to be a general power. The drafters of the law also use the words “other property”. I interpret this to mean any other category of uses of the property other than for religion, education social welfare, outdoor sports, dispensary, hospital or public health purposes. For example, the Minister may decide to designate buildings used for indoor sports as not having to pay rates and taxes to the Council. But this rule has to be applied generally and not be specific to any individual business or owner.
I am therefore saying that the Minister has no powers to grant an exemption to any specific building, but can grant an exemption to any category of buildings other than those which can be exempted by the Council. In other words, the Minister cannot grant an exemption from taxes for any building used for religious purposes, since the law already vests such powers in the Council and grants only to the Minister, powers of a general nature for other property.
There is no need for this issue to become another festering sore in our body politic. The President of Guyana should dispose of this controversy quickly by taking certain steps. He should not allow it to fester. He has the option of asking his Attorney General for an opinion on this matter. Once he is satisfied that the Minister cannot exempt a specific property from taxes, then he should reverse that order that was granted and have the controversy ended.
Even if the Attorney General holds that the Minister can exempt rates and taxes for properties used for religious purposes, regardless of whether it is used by owner or tenant, and even if the Attorney General holds that the Minister has the power to grant a specific owner and exemption from such rates and taxes, this exemption cannot be applied to taxes that were previously owed. In other words, the Minister’s power cannot waive any sum owed to Council, it can only exempt future rates and taxes.
The President has to appreciate the political implications of this controversy. If persons owing millions to the Council are granted exemptions by the Minister what about ordinary homeowners, especially pensioners? Should they not enjoy similar treatment?