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.

Sunday, February 16, 2025

Privy Council ruling on TTRA final appeal in October

by

212 days ago
20240718
The Privy Council building in London, England. [Image courtesy the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]

The Privy Council building in London, England. [Image courtesy the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]

 

The Pub­lic Ser­vices As­so­ci­a­tion (PSA) and its mem­bers in the In­land Rev­enue Di­vi­sion (IRD) and the Cus­toms and Ex­cise Di­vi­sion (CED) will have to wait al­most three months to learn the fate of a law­suit chal­leng­ing the on­go­ing op­er­a­tional­i­sa­tion of the long-tout­ed T&T Rev­enue Au­thor­i­ty (TTRA).

Five Law Lords of the Privy Coun­cil promised to de­liv­er their de­ci­sion in the fi­nal ap­peal of the case when the new law term opens at the be­gin­ning of Oc­to­ber af­ter fin­ish­ing hear­ing sub­mis­sions at the UK Supreme Court Build­ing in Lon­don, Eng­land, a short while ago.

Un­til then, pub­lic ser­vants at both di­vi­sions will have to de­cide whether they wish to join the au­thor­i­ty as the Board de­clined to grant a stay of a de­ci­sion tak­en by the Min­istry of Fi­nance to re­quest that the de­ci­sions be in­di­cat­ed by the end of the month.

The Law Lords said that they were sat­is­fied with a re­cent un­der­tak­ing giv­en by the min­istry that the op­tions se­lect­ed by the pub­lic ser­vants would not be ac­ti­vat­ed un­til the case is fi­nal­ly de­ter­mined.

In the ap­peal, the PSA is con­tend­ing that a High Court Judge and the Court of Ap­peal got it wrong when they re­ject­ed the case brought by its mem­ber and cus­toms of­fi­cer Ter­ris­sa Dho­ray.

In the sub­stan­tive law­suit, the PSA and Dho­ray, chal­lenged the con­sti­tu­tion­al va­lid­i­ty of the leg­is­la­tion which seeks to re­place the IRD and CED with the TTRA.

The law­suit specif­i­cal­ly fo­cused on Sec­tion 18 of the T&T Rev­enue Act which was pro­claimed by Pres­i­dent Chris­tine Kan­ga­loo on April 24, last year.

The sec­tion gave pub­lic ser­vants three months to make a de­ci­sion on their fu­ture em­ploy­ment up­on the op­er­a­tional­i­sa­tion of the TTRA.

Af­fect­ed pub­lic ser­vants have the choice to vol­un­tar­i­ly re­sign from the Pub­lic Ser­vice, ac­cept a trans­fer to the TTRA, or be trans­ferred to an­oth­er of­fice in the Pub­lic Ser­vice.

The im­ple­men­ta­tion was ini­tial­ly ex­pect­ed to take place in Au­gust 2023, but was de­ferred by Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert to De­cem­ber 2023 based on the case. It was sub­se­quent­ly de­ferred to March 2024 to fa­cil­i­tate the ap­peal be­fore the Court of Ap­peal. 

Dho­ray's lawyers con­tend­ed that cer­tain seg­ments of the leg­is­la­tion are un­con­sti­tu­tion­al as they seek to in­ter­fere with the terms and con­di­tions of em­ploy­ment of pub­lic ser­vants cur­rent­ly as­signed to the CED and IRD.

She al­so claimed that the Gov­ern­ment did not have the pow­er to del­e­gate its tax rev­enue col­lec­tion du­ties.

In its de­fence, the Gov­ern­ment has claimed that tax col­lec­tion could be del­e­gat­ed once guide­lines are pro­vid­ed by Par­lia­ment.

In No­vem­ber, last year, Jus­tice West­min James dis­missed the case.

While he not­ed that tax­a­tion is a key source of a gov­ern­ment's rev­enue and that the process of as­sess­ing and col­lect­ing tax­es is es­sen­tial, Jus­tice James not­ed that there were cur­rent­ly in­stances of pri­vate en­ti­ties be­ing able to col­lect tax­es on the gov­ern­ment's be­half.

He al­so point­ed out that sev­er­al for­eign coun­tries have set up sim­i­lar spe­cial­ist bod­ies to deal with the "com­plex­i­ties" of mod­ern tax­a­tion.

In up­hold­ing Jus­tice James' judg­ment in May, the ap­peal pan­el ruled that while en­force­ment is a "core gov­ern­ment func­tion" that can­not be del­e­gat­ed, the as­sess­ment and col­lec­tion of tax are not.

"We ob­serve that the as­sess­ment ,which the Au­thor­i­ty is em­pow­ered to con­duct, is in re­al­i­ty an arith­meti­cal stage of the process and does not con­fer on the as­ses­sor any co­er­cive pow­er," said Jus­tice Mi­ra Dean-Ar­mor­er, who wrote the judg­ment.

"Col­lec­tion is al­so not co­er­cive and is gen­er­al­ly vol­un­tary," she added.

Jus­tice Dean-Ar­mor­er not­ed that en­force­ment will still be per­formed by pub­lic ser­vants, who fall un­der the re­mit of the Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PSC).

"We there­fore hold that there was no breach of the im­plied term that core func­tions should re­main un­der the su­per­vi­sion of the PSC," she said.

Dho­ray was rep­re­sent­ed by Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, Jayan­ti Lutch­me­di­al, Kent Sam­lal, Robert Ab­dool-Mitchell, Natasha Bis­ram, Vishaal Siewsaran and Ganesh Sa­roop.

The au­thor­i­ty and the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Dou­glas Mendes, SC, Si­mon de la Bastide, SC, and Leanne Thomas.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored