Abia State Internal Revenue Service has reacted to the alleged fake tax
clearance certificate the state governor, Okezie Ikpeazu, reportedly
presented during the state’s PDP governorship primaries in 2014.
According to a statement released by the state’s internal revenue
service this morning, the tax certificates of Ikpeazu are not fake and
were duly issued by them.
There is tension in the state currently after a High
court in Abuja ordered Ikpeazu to vacate his office after his opponent
in the state’s PDP overnorship primaries, Uche Ogar, proved to the court
that Ikpeazu tendered fake tax credentials to their party. Read full
text of the statement released by the Abia state internal revenue and
signed by its chairman, Udochukwu G. Ogbonna, below
The
attention of the Abia State Internal Revenue Service has been drawn to a
court judgement of the Federal High Court Abuja on the tax clearance
certificate issued to Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu by the Service, and
hereby makes the following clarifications:
attention of the Abia State Internal Revenue Service has been drawn to a
court judgement of the Federal High Court Abuja on the tax clearance
certificate issued to Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu by the Service, and
hereby makes the following clarifications:
1.
That the tax clearance certificate referred to in that Judgment was
duly issued to Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu by the Service, and was
therefore not fake.
That the tax clearance certificate referred to in that Judgment was
duly issued to Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu by the Service, and was
therefore not fake.
2.
That the taxes for the years 2011,2012 and 2013 were PAYE taxes
deducted at source from his personal emoluments by his employers (Abia
State Passengers’ Integrated Manifest Scheme and Abia State
Environmental Sanitation Authority respectively) and remitted to the
service in the relevant tax years
That the taxes for the years 2011,2012 and 2013 were PAYE taxes
deducted at source from his personal emoluments by his employers (Abia
State Passengers’ Integrated Manifest Scheme and Abia State
Environmental Sanitation Authority respectively) and remitted to the
service in the relevant tax years
3.
That the dates on the tax receipts of the relevant years (2011, 2012
and 2013) did not suggest that they were paid on those dates, but only
reflected the date he applied to be issued with the receipts, because
that was when he needed them.
That the dates on the tax receipts of the relevant years (2011, 2012
and 2013) did not suggest that they were paid on those dates, but only
reflected the date he applied to be issued with the receipts, because
that was when he needed them.
4.
In the same vein the dates on the tax receipts did not suggest that
they were written out on those days. The date on the receipts only
indicates the last day of the last month of the year, when the PAYE tax
payer became entitled to the receipts, as the receipts could not have
carried a date earlier or later than the of the relevant tax year. It is immaterial that it fell on a , or any other day of the week. For example if 31st December 2011 fell on a ,
in the month following i.e January, when the receipts are to be written
out, it cannot carry any date in January 2012 or any other month in
2012.
In the same vein the dates on the tax receipts did not suggest that
they were written out on those days. The date on the receipts only
indicates the last day of the last month of the year, when the PAYE tax
payer became entitled to the receipts, as the receipts could not have
carried a date earlier or later than the of the relevant tax year. It is immaterial that it fell on a , or any other day of the week. For example if 31st December 2011 fell on a ,
in the month following i.e January, when the receipts are to be written
out, it cannot carry any date in January 2012 or any other month in
2012.
5.
That his taxes having been deducted by his afore said employers and
remitted to the service within the relevant years will not be said to
have been paid on the same day, as such were paid as at when due. In
fact the issue of payment as at when due does not apply to PAYE taxes
because the tax payer has no part to play in the deduction and
remittance of his PAYE as the same is done by his employer. Where there
is failure to deduct and remit PAYE taxes, it is the employer and not
the tax payer that is liable. See LSIRS and Seven Up Bottling Company
reported in year 2000.
That his taxes having been deducted by his afore said employers and
remitted to the service within the relevant years will not be said to
have been paid on the same day, as such were paid as at when due. In
fact the issue of payment as at when due does not apply to PAYE taxes
because the tax payer has no part to play in the deduction and
remittance of his PAYE as the same is done by his employer. Where there
is failure to deduct and remit PAYE taxes, it is the employer and not
the tax payer that is liable. See LSIRS and Seven Up Bottling Company
reported in year 2000.
Having
stated the facts as they are above, we make bold to say that the tax
returns filed by Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu to his party (Peoples
Democratic Party) were neither false nor fake and cannot be said to
amount to fraudulent payment of taxes.
stated the facts as they are above, we make bold to say that the tax
returns filed by Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu to his party (Peoples
Democratic Party) were neither false nor fake and cannot be said to
amount to fraudulent payment of taxes.
Consequently,
we affirm that both the Tax Clearance Certificate and the tax receipts
referred to in the afore said judgment were the documents of Abia State
Internal Revenue Service because same was authored by the Service as the
authority empowered by law to do so.
we affirm that both the Tax Clearance Certificate and the tax receipts
referred to in the afore said judgment were the documents of Abia State
Internal Revenue Service because same was authored by the Service as the
authority empowered by law to do so.
Finally,
we state emphatically for the records and for the attention of the
general public that we were never invited (subpoenaed) by the court or
the plaintiff, Dr. Uchechukwu Ogah during the pendency of the subject
suit that led to the judgment in Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu’s tax matter to
state the authenticity or otherwise of the tax papers in issue.
we state emphatically for the records and for the attention of the
general public that we were never invited (subpoenaed) by the court or
the plaintiff, Dr. Uchechukwu Ogah during the pendency of the subject
suit that led to the judgment in Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu’s tax matter to
state the authenticity or otherwise of the tax papers in issue.
Udochukwu G. Ogbonna
Executive Chairman.
Executive Chairman.