Administration is proposing to strengthen the Board of Review's membership in the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 1985 which hopefully will help to reduce the present backlog of cases. However, I understand that these 300 cases involve some $500m in tax held over, as compared with the total tax held over of $2,984m at 31 March 1984. I assume that some $2,500m tax under objection have not yet been transmitted to the Board of Review There may but pending for determination by the tax authority.
be valid reasons for the long period needed to settle a case. I suppose that the considerable time taken is not due to unnecessary delay caused by the taxpayers, because in such events, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can exercise his power prescribed by Section 71 Subsection (3) and demand immediate payment from the taxpayers. What recourse is there for the taxpayer to speed up the process of reaching a decision, especially when the taxpayer's fund are tied up in the Tax Reserve Certificates, or the taxpayer is paying the bank charges for the bank guarantee?
I take this opportunity to quote some of the
representations which reflect the public's views on this matter.
"Even now, when the incentive is with the Department
to settle a case, it often takes several years before
a Board of Review decision is reached."
"It is significant that the Bill contains no proposals under which a taxpayer who suffers damage from unjustified acts or delay by the Revenue can seek redress from the Commissioner, from the Assessor
responsible, or from Government."
"If a taxpayer delays the process of an objection unduly the department can uplift the hold over.
There
is, however, no protection available to the taxpayer if the department is slow in processing a refund."