Taxation refers to the practice of a government for collecting money from its citizens and business entities based on their earnings and property to bear government expenditure. Citizens and business entities use and take public services such as roads, electricity, gas, water, government transports, government establishments, health services, security and justice etc. To provide such type of services and facilities to the citizens & entities government collect revenue from various sources.

We can know through prints and electronics media that the National Board of Revenue is trying to take more and more citizens and business entities under tax net gradually. In this context, they have taken some initiatives in the current financial year to expand the existing tax net: Knocking door to door for finding new tax payers, introduces three new clauses y, z and za under section 184(1) in which clause y and z are for government and government-affiliated employees and 'za' is for private sector employees to generate 12 digits E-TIN. These two were the major initiatives among them in the current financial year.
What is the feasibility of knocking door to door program for finding new taxpayers. Many believe that probably Bangladesh is one of the most corrupted countries in the world. Harassment by taxmen is the major obstacle for a taxpayer to encourage to pay taxes properly. In this context, "knocking door to door for finding a new taxpayer" program is not the right policy to increase taxpayers since most of the taxpayers fear taxmen in Bangladesh. That's why, citizens or business entities do not agree to walk in that way.

Mentally, they take the tax related matters just as a legal formality, not accounted for the motherland and this formality is completed by appointing a tax lawyer to avoid any inevitable hassle. It is very interesting that to pay minimum tax, a taxpayer pays to a lawyer more money than the tax amount!

How NBR can bring all eligible citizens and business entities under tax net easily without implementing knocking door to door policy.
As per section 75 of Income Tax Ordinance 1984, every person shall file or cause to be filed, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable to tax under this ordinance. If he resides within the limits of a city corporation or of a paurashava or a divisional headquarters or district headquarters and who at any time during the relevant income year and owns a building which consists of more than one storey and the plinth area of which exceeds one thousand six hundred square feet.

In this case, if policymakers introduce a policy for the utility sector and or insert a clause under section 184 (1) that if the house owner owns more than one storey and the plinth area of which exceeds one thousand six hundred square feet & if he wants electricity connection and keeping existing connection continue, house owners have to submit income tax return showing this house in the IT-10B.
When the house owner files an application for new electricity connection, he has to submit the certified copy of the tax return or IT-10B to the electricity office with the application for new connection and also submit to the same office annually within prescribed time by such type of policy for keeping existing connections continue in order to prove that he has submitted the tax return showing this house in the IT-10B.

Such a case all said type house owners will bind to submit a yearly tax return to get a new electricity connection, reconnection or keeping existing connections continue in their said house. As a result, NBR can catch two birds by a deal. One, NBR can confirm of submission of annual income tax return by related taxpayers regularly and another, they can provide an obstacle to hide the assets of taxpayers as well as hide actual income.

At the same time, if a person owns a motor car under the same section of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984, he has to submit an annual income tax return also. In this case, if a condition is provided by policy makers for the such type of motor car in the BRTA and or insert a clause under section 184 (1) that application for a fitness certificate has to be submitted along with a certified copy of the income tax return or IT-10B. Before providing fitness certificate of a motor car, certified copy of the annual tax return or IT-10B must be checked by the BRTA authority, whether said motor car is shown in the annual tax return/ IT-10B or not.

If it is shown, certificate will be provided and refused otherwise. The same things can be applied for company owns building and motor car also. A car owner uses government-owned road, gas, create traffic jam and taking service from traffic police on the road but pay tax less than non-motor car owner. This is not ethical also.

A motor car owner has a binding to file an annual tax return as per the Income Tax Ordinance 1984. Many of them file an annual income tax return showing miserable financial condition hiding the owned motor car. To avoid this type of unethical and unlawful activities, policy makers should make a policy for BRTA to submit certified copies of return or IT-10B to obtain fitness certificate of a motor car. This rule may be applied for company tax file also.

These could be examples that how NBR can bring citizens and business entities under tax net easily without implementing knocking door to door policy. Also such type of obligations may be applied for all cases of under section 75 as this section for "Return of Income" where directed that who is eligible to file a tax return.

This section is the route of income tax. If our policy makers give attention regarding this section and make necessary policy for linkage departments like BRTA and Electricity officials, then NBR will never knock door to door for finding new taxpayers. Though some binding has been provided under section 184 (1) relating to section 75. But these are not enough and not for all as well as these are not correctly implemented by the respective department.

In finance act 2016-2017, introduces three new clauses y, z and za under section 184 (1) in which 'za' for private sector employees to provide binding to generate 12 digit E-TIN. Financial policy makers and Honourable Finance Minister of our country may not observe the salary structure of the private sector employees. They could not insert such type of clauses to generate an E-TIN otherwise, except the clauses y and z for government and government-affiliated employees.

In accordance with the latest pay scale, salary of government and government-affiliated employees is almost higher than private sector employees. Also, they have incidental or speed money, if he wants. Apart from these, a government employee gets a pension, GPF or others benefit which is beyond thinking for a private sector employee. A government employee does not need any saving for the future because they have a huge amount of retirement benefits. But a private sector employee has to maintain his all types of household expenses from his salary only and then he has to think about saving for his aged life or for his inherent.

In the clause 'za' define for private sector employees that receiving any payment which is an income of the payee classifiable under the head "salaries" by any person employed in the management or administrative function or in any supervisory position in the production function, he has to generate 12 digit ETIN or submit updated ETIN to getting salary.

In this perspective an example has been given bearing number 10-1, page number 15 in the Paripatra-1 (Income Tax) / 2016-17 mentioning the designation of an employee as Executive Assistant. An executive Assistant may be equivalent to a "peon" or an entry level officer of the most of the companies. He may earn 6000 to 12000 (Gross). That means a private sectors employee has to become a taxpayer, whether his gross salary is 6000 or 6,00,000. Is this feasible for our country?

The goal will not be achieved by this clause, but this will be treated as harassment tool for tax men in the related assessment year. This is very difficult to understand that why policy makers of our country would like to walk opposite way? Do they want to increase government revenue or to make healthier pocket of taxmen? We expect that necessary direction regarding these matters should be included in the Finance Act 2017-2018

লেখাটি The Daily Observer পত্রিকায় জুন ১৩, ২০১৭ খ্রীঃ তারিখে প্রকাশিত।