Cost Fiji Treasury

Indian Tax Dodgers

Cost Fiji Treasury £13,000

From Our Own Correspondent

Suva, Oct. 19.

A COMMITTEE’ to investigate the in cidence of taxation in Fiji and to make recommendations for adjust ments was set up last year. Its report, issued as a Council Paper, has now been released Nothing drastic is recommended. In deed, the report states that although the committee appealed through both press and radio for persons concerned to state their views, very few bothered to do so.

The obvious conclusion is that there is not much wrong with the incidence of taxation.

What does concern the committee, as well as a good many other people, how ever, is the apparent inability of the Taxation Department to collect from in come-tax-dodgers. In Fiji this class is almost exclusively Asiatic.

The committee believes that the revenue loss (compared with the 1946 approved estimates) of £13,972, could be recovered by strengthening the income tax inspection staff. Members of the Suva Chamber of Commerce have already pointed out that substantial sums are lost to the Treasury because many In dian traders will not or cannot keep books in English and are thus able to flummox the inspectors An Indian member of the committee, however, put forward a unique suggestion that this loss could also be recovered by “a slight increase of 2d. or 3d. in the company rate of income tax.”

The report advocates no changes in the present rates or levels of individual in come tax and company tax. It suggests that the possibilities of land taxation be investigated and that the Post and Tele graph Department be placed on a com mercial footing.

Pilotage and wharfage dues should be increased, the committee believes, and the exemption of copra from Port and Cus toms service tax should be abolished, the tax itself being raised from 1 per cent, to 2 per cent.

Other recommendations are a reduc tion on the royalty on gold and silver and the ultimate withdrawal of the royalty; depreciation to be allowed on buildings, industrial and agricultural plant and houses and the licensing of all trading concerns to be taken over by the Gov ernment from local authorities. committee strongly recommends the establishment of a Statistical Records Office.

"Strong Measures" Sought

PJIHE committee made these observa- X tions:— “It is safe to assume that there are more successful attempts at evasion of income tax than there are failures, and if the figures for 1944 and 1945 are any guide, we can conclude only that enor mous sums must have been lost to the operative 8 ” 1100 Ordinance first became The report shows that in 1944, 1,229 Europeans paid £76,616 in income and . The °nly penalty was £5 (from one taxpayer). . same ear 625 Indians paid frH 58 io? J axes —and £13,077 in penalties SSIJifi 83 . tax Payers a percentage of P lt i i o! R t0 i o a^p^ers of 24 - 10 P er cent.

In 1945,. 1,319 Europeans paid £57.814 with £5BO in penalties from five taxpayers a t( & al of 561 Indians paid £35,204, with penalties of £4,605 from 83 taxpayers (13.08 per cent.).

The Chinese record was: In 1944, 168 paid £12,746 with £1,064 in penalties from 40 08.35 per cent.); and in 1945, 159 paid £2,925, with £1,620 in penalties from 41 (55.38 per cent.).

The committee recommends “strong measures,” to check such losses.