JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, March 21, 2025

Monteil loses $20M tax appeal at Privy Council

by

Rhondor Dowlat
119 days ago
20241122
Andre Monteil

Andre Monteil

For­mer CL Fi­nan­cial ex­ec­u­tive An­dre Mon­teil has lost his fi­nal ap­peal be­fore the Privy Coun­cil over a dis­put­ed in­come tax as­sess­ment ex­ceed­ing $20 mil­lion.

The de­ci­sion, de­liv­ered yes­ter­day by Lord Hodge, ends a le­gal bat­tle stem­ming from the fil­ing of Mon­teil’s 2007/2008 in­come tax re­turn and car­ries sig­nif­i­cant im­pli­ca­tions for em­ploy­ees and em­ploy­ers alike re­gard­ing their tax oblig­a­tions.

Yes­ter­day, an ad­vis­er to Mon­teil said the for­mer CL ex­ec­u­tive would be ap­proach­ing the Board of In­land Rev­enue (BIR) to dis­cuss a re­pay­ment plan for his out­stand­ing tax­es.

The dis­pute emerged af­ter the BIR au­dit­ed Mon­teil’s de­clared in­come, which he had list­ed sole­ly as his em­ploy­ment salary. The BIR lat­er au­dit­ed the re­turns and un­cov­ered dis­crep­an­cies, re­veal­ing that his ac­tu­al emol­u­ment in­come far ex­ceed­ed the de­clared amount.

On Oc­to­ber 1, 2012, the BIR is­sued an as­sess­ment for ad­di­tion­al in­come tax li­a­bil­i­ties, hold­ing Mon­teil re­spon­si­ble for the short­fall. Mon­teil’s le­gal ar­gu­ment cen­tred on the Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) sys­tem, which, un­der Sec­tion 99 of the In­come Tax Act (ITA), ob­lig­ates em­ploy­ers to deduct and re­mit tax­es on be­half of em­ploy­ees.

He ar­gued that this frame­work placed full re­spon­si­bil­i­ty on his em­ploy­er to re­mit the owed amount, ab­solv­ing him of any fur­ther li­a­bil­i­ty. How­ev­er, this in­ter­pre­ta­tion failed to hold up in court.

The Tax Ap­peal Board dis­missed Mon­teil’s claim, rul­ing that PAYE is sim­ply a mech­a­nism for tax col­lec­tion and does not ab­solve em­ploy­ees of their ul­ti­mate li­a­bil­i­ty for un­paid tax­es.

Both the Court of Ap­peal and the Privy Coun­cil up­held this po­si­tion. The Privy Coun­cil out­lined sev­er­al key points in its de­ci­sion:

1. Em­ploy­ees Ul­ti­mate­ly Re­spon­si­ble for Tax­es: While PAYE en­sures that tax­es de­duct­ed by em­ploy­ers are cred­it­ed to em­ploy­ees, the ul­ti­mate oblig­a­tion to pay tax­es lies with the in­di­vid­ual, as stat­ed in Sec­tion 5 of the ITA.

2. BIR’s Au­thor­i­ty to Re­cov­er Un­paid Tax­es: Sec­tions 83 and 89 of the ITA em­pow­er the BIR to is­sue ad­di­tion­al as­sess­ments for un­paid tax­es, re­gard­less of PAYE com­pli­ance.

3. PAYE Not Ex­clu­sive: The rul­ing clar­i­fied that PAYE is not the on­ly mech­a­nism for tax re­cov­ery. Even if an em­ploy­er fails to re­mit tax­es, em­ploy­ees re­main li­able for any short­fall.

4. Em­ploy­er Penal­ties Do Not Shield Em­ploy­ees: Al­though em­ploy­ers may face penal­ties for fail­ing to re­mit tax­es un­der Sec­tion 99(4), this does not elim­i­nate em­ploy­ees’ ac­count­abil­i­ty for their tax li­a­bil­i­ties.

Con­tact­ed for com­ment, an ad­vis­er to Mon­teil told Guardian Me­dia that the em­ploy­ment con­tract of the for­mer CLI­CO and CL Fi­nan­cial ex­ec­u­tive stip­u­lat­ed that his com­pen­sa­tion pack­age should be net of tax­es.

The ad­vis­er said the tax­a­tion paid by the com­pa­ny on Mon­teil’s pack­age was deemed to be a ‘ben­e­fit in kind’ for which the ex­ec­u­tive was re­quired to pay tax.

The ad­vis­er de­scribed this in­ter­pre­ta­tion as a tax on tax. Ac­cord­ing to the ad­vis­er, the Privy Coun­cil judg­ment could im­pact every em­ploy­ee who is re­ceiv­ing a ben­e­fit in kind in T&T. Ben­e­fits in kind could in­clude a com­pa­ny car or ac­com­mo­da­tion paid for by a com­pa­ny.

Econ­o­mist: Rul­ing sends a strong mes­sage to em­ploy­ers about com­pli­ance

Econ­o­mist Dr Vaalmik­ki Ar­joon yes­ter­day em­pha­sised the broad­er im­pli­ca­tions of the rul­ing, not­ing that it sends a strong mes­sage to em­ploy­ers about com­pli­ance.

“This rul­ing serves as a cru­cial re­minder to em­ploy­ers about the im­por­tance of prop­er pay­roll com­pli­ance and tax com­pli­ance. Em­ploy­ers must dili­gent­ly ad­here to PAYE oblig­a­tions be­cause fail­ure to ac­cu­rate­ly deduct and re­mit tax­es can lead to le­gal reper­cus­sions, rep­u­ta­tion­al dam­age, and sig­nif­i­cant le­gal costs,” Dr Ar­joon said.

Dr Ar­joon al­so un­der­scored the im­por­tance of proac­tive mea­sures. “Em­ploy­ers should con­sid­er in­vest­ing in train­ing for HR and pay­roll staff to en­sure they are cur­rent with tax laws. They need to im­ple­ment and up­grade pay­roll sys­tems to en­sure ac­cu­ra­cy in tax de­duc­tions, which can help pre­vent er­rors and re­duce dis­putes.”

While em­ploy­ers are ob­lig­at­ed to re­mit tax­es, em­ploy­ees are not off the hook, Dr Ar­joon added.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored