KTBA presents tax proposals for salary income

KTBA presents tax proposals for salary income

KARACHI: The Karachi Tax Bar Association (KTBA) has presented income tax proposals for salary income for incorporating in the Finance Bill 2021.

In its proposals for budget 2021/2022, the tax bar highlighted the issue related to taxation of notional income.

It said that the difference between the benchmark rate and the actual rate of interest is charged where actual rate of interest is charged at less than the benchmark rate by the employers on concessionary loans provided to the employees or otherwise it is treated as perquisite chargeable to tax

The tax bar said the taxation of this notional income is highly unjust since it taxes the notional income of the salaried person, which is against the basic principle of taxation since this notional income will never ever be received by the taxpayer.

The KTBA proposed that the taxation of marginal income on loans obtained from the employer below benchmark rate should be exempted for lower threshold amounts. The minimum threshold of the loan amount on which the provisions of Section 13(7) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 may not apply should be raised to at least Rs.2,500,000/- from the existing limit of Rs.1,000,000/-.

It is further suggested that benchmark rate currently fixed at ten percent be based on Kibor rate.

Giving rationale to the proposal, the KTBA said that the change would result in facilitation and easement of salaried taxpayers.

The tax bar highlighted the issue of withholding tax on salary income.

It said as per section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, every person paying salary to employee shall deduct tax from the amount paid at specified rate after making tax adjustment of tax credit U/s. 61, 62 ,63 and 64 of the Ordinance and other adjustments.

Complete tax credits though legally available are not adjusted in payroll run.

The KTBA proposed that this section should include all tax credit under Part X Chapter III as are admissible against salary income.

Giving rationale to the proposal, the KTBA said that the current scheme has apparently missed tax credit under section 62A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The proposed amendment would cater all the current credits and those to be introduced from time to time.

The KTBA also highlighted the issue of employer contribution to Provident Fund.

It said Under Clause (3), Part I, Sixth Schedule of the Ordinance, the employer’s contribution in the recognized provident fund in excess of Rs.150,000 (increased from Rs.100,000 by Finance Act, 2016) is deemed to be income of the employee.

This provision is invalid as the accumulated balance (it includes employer’s contribution) due and becoming payable to an employee participating in a recognized provident fund is totally exempt from tax under Clause (23), Part I, Second Schedule.

Without prejudice to foregoing, since employer’s contribution does not constitute an actual receipt as the same is not at the disposal of an employee and therefore tax incidence should not be levied at the time of contribution.

The tax bar proposed that Clause (3) Part 1, Sixth Schedule be amended to exempt employer contribution to bring it at par with clause (23) Part 1, Second Schedule.

Alternatively, the threshold be based as Rs 150,000 or 1/10th of the salary whichever is higher.

Giving rationale to the proposal, the KTBA said that since employer’s contribution does not constitute an actual receipt as the same is not at the disposal of an employee and therefore tax incidence should not be levied at the time of contribution.

To another proposal, the KTBA said that as per clause (13)(iv) of part – I, there is existing limit of Rs.75,000/-.

Gratuity exemption not indexed for inflation, it added.

It should be increased to Rs.300,000/-, the KTBA proposed.

Considering the inflationary effect since the current limit as set at the promulgation of Ordinance has remained unchanged.

Similarly, the KTBA highlighted that as per clause (23A), withdrawal of 50 percent of balance is exempted subject to fulfillment of conditions.

It said that it was an inadequate exemption.

It is proposed to increase the exemption to the extent of withdrawal of actual amount invested in the pension fund and additional amount to be taxed at the rate of tax applicable on salaries.

To exempt the portion of investment made in pension funds.

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.