Special Goods and Services Tax: Issues and Concerns

Originally appeared on Ceylon Today, Daily FT, The Island

By Dr Roshan Perera & Naqiya Shiraz

I. Background

The new bill titled ‘Special Goods and Services Tax’ was published by gazette dated 07 January 2022. (1) The Special Goods and Services Tax (SGST) was originally proposed in Budget speech 2021 but was not implemented. It has once again been presented in Budget 2022. The SGST aims to consolidate taxes on manufacturing and importing cigarettes, liquor, vehicles and assembly parts, while also consolidating taxes on telecommunication and betting and gaming (see table 1 for existing taxes on these products and table 2 for taxes consolidated into the SGST as per the schedule in the gazette). The rationale for this new tax as per the bill is “...to promote self-compliance in the payment of taxes in order to ensure greater efficiency in relation to the collection and administration on such taxes by avoiding the complexities associated with the application and administration of a multiple tax regime on specified goods and services.”

Given the multiplicity of taxes and the complexity of the current tax system as a whole, rationalising taxes is necessary to improve collection. However, whether the proposed SGST simplifies the tax system while ensuring revenue neutrality or even improving revenue collection, needs to be carefully examined.

The SGST Bill is silent on the treatment of the existing VAT on these goods and services. However, according to the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Bill also gazetted on 07 January 2022,(2) liquor, cigarettes and motor vehicles will be exempted from VAT while telecommunications and betting and gaming services will still be subject to VAT. 

While the gazetted Bill sets out some of the features of the proposed SGST there are many important areas not covered in the Bill.  These are expected to be gazetted as and when required by the Minister in charge. 

II. Issues & Concerns

The motivation behind SGST is the simplification of the tax system. Although the objective of introducing the SGST is to improve efficiency by reducing the complexity of the tax system there are many issues and concerns with this proposed tax.

1. Revenue

Tax revenue which was 13% of GDP in 2010, declined to 8% in 2020.  Ad hoc policy changes and weak administration contributed to the decline in tax revenue collection.  This continuous decline in tax revenue has led to widening fiscal deficits and increasing debt. One of the main reasons for the current macroeconomic crisis is low tax revenue collection. Hence, any change to the existing tax system should be with the primary objective of raising more revenue.  

According to the budget speech the SGST is estimated to bring in an additional Rs. 50 billion in revenue in 2022. (3) Revenue from taxes proposed to be consolidated under the SGST has significantly declined over the past 3 years. Given the already difficult macroeconomic environment, along with ad hoc tax policy changes raising the additional revenue estimated at Rs. 50 billion seems a difficult task. 

2. Tax Base and Rate

For the SGST to raise taxes in excess of what is already being collected through the existing taxes, the rate and the base for the SGST needs to be carefully and methodically calculated. Further, the existing taxes have different bases of taxation. For instance the basis of taxation of motor vehicles is both on an ad valorem (4) basis and a quantity basis while the basis of taxation of cigarettes and liquor is quantity. (5) In light of this, the basis of taxation on which SGST is applied becomes an issue. Having different bases and different rates for various goods and services would complicate the implementation of the tax These issues need to be carefully considered to ensure the new tax is revenue neutral or be able to enhance revenue collection.

3. Efficiency

One possible revenue benefit of this proposal is the inability to claim input tax credits on the sectors exempted from VAT. However, the issue is the cascading effect that would result where there would be a tax on tax with the end consumer paying taxes on already paid taxes. If the idea was to raise additional revenue by limiting tax credits, it would have been simpler to raise the tax rates on the existing taxes rather than introduce a new tax. 

4. Administration

According to the bill, SGST  will now be collected through a new unit set up under the General Treasury where a Designated Officer (DO) will be in charge of the administration, collection and accountability of the tax. The existing revenue collection agencies, such as the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) or the Excise Department will not be primarily responsible for the collection of this tax. By removing the  IRD and Excise Department, a parallel bureaucracy will be created, at a time when public spending needs to be carefully managed. The General Treasury also has no previous experience and expertise in direct revenue collection. Weak administration is one of the key reasons for the low tax collection and success of this tax would depend on the strength of its administration. 

In addition to the above-mentioned concerns, as per the Bill the minister in charge of the SGST has been vested with the power to set the rates, the base and grant exemptions. Accordingly, Parliamentary oversight over fiscal matters is weakened under this proposed Bill. 

It could also lead to a time lag between the gazetting and implementing of changes to the SGST (such as the rate, base etc) and obtaining Parliamentary approval for those changes.

5. Dispute resolution 

The SGST Bill also focuses on the dispute resolution mechanism. Under the present tax system,  with the enactment of the Tax Appeals Commission Act, No. 23 in 2011 the Tax Appeals Commission has the “responsibility of hearing all appeals in respect of matters relating to imposition of any tax, levy or duty”.(6) The most recent amendment to the Tax Appeal Commissions act (2013) (7)  seeks to address the large number (495) of cases pending before the Tax Appeals Commission (8) by increasing the number of panels to hear the appeals. 

Under the proposed SGST disputes will be handled through the court of appeal. However, the time period by which specific actions need to be taken is not provided in the bill. In addition, disputes have to be taken to the court of appeal.  Hence, the entire process will be more time consuming. This could result in revenue lags and difficulties in revenue estimation until disputes are resolved.

Additionally, in the case that no valid appeal has been lodged within 14 days, any remaining payments would be considered to be in default. Thereafter, the responsibility is shifted to the Commissioner-General of the IRD to recover the dues. Given the IRD is completely removed from the normal collection process, the rationale for bringing defaults under the IRD is not clear.

III. Policy Recommendations

As discussed, the SGST Bill has several limitations and much of this is due to the ambiguities in the Bill.  

• If the tax is implemented, the rate and basis of taxation need to be revenue-neutral to ensure tax collection is maximised and administrative costs minimised.

• The rates, basis of taxation, exemptions etc should be specified in the Bill, as done in most other Acts. This would avoid the power for discretionary changes to the tax being placed in the hands of the minister in charge. 

• Given the already weak tax administration, it would be more sensible to strengthen the existing revenue collecting agencies and address the weaknesses in the existing system without creating a parallel bureaucracy.

• In the case where VAT is consolidated into the proposed GST, the issue of cascading effect of input tax credits needs to be addressed. This is relevant particularly in the case of capital expenditure. 

Given the critical state of revenue collection in the country, the question to ask is whether this is the best time to introduce a new tax. Focus should be on fixing issues in the existing tax system to ensure revenue is maximised.  The VAT is the least distortionary tax and it is the easiest to administer. Given these features, it can be a very efficient revenue generator for a country. Therefore instead of introducing a new tax, capitalising on systems that are already in place and amending the VAT rate, threshold and exemptions may be a more practical solution to the revenue problem that the country is currently facing. 

Dr. Roshan Perera, Senior Research Fellow, Advocata Institute and former Director, Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

Naqiya Shiraz is a Research Analyst at the Advocata Institute.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute, or anyone affiliated with the institute.

References:

1. http://documents.gov.lk/files/bill/2022/1/162-2022_E.pdf

2. http://documents.gov.lk/files/bill/2022/1/163-2022_E.pdf

3. https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/0c3639d9-cb0a-4f9d-b4f9-5571c2d16a8b

4. A value based tax base of ad-valorem refers to a rate of tax, where revenue will increase if the value of tax base increases. 
   A quantity based tax base is a tax imposed on a per unit quantity of the product.

5. https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/304e2f2f-f215-40ad-b613-4d7cc3427178

6. https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/4028b5a0-f166-4f1d-a076-299e32200212
   http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.lk/cab/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=49&lang=en&dID=10210

Repay Foreign Debt or Finance Essential Imports

Originally appeared on Daily FT, Lanka Business Online and Groundviews

By Dr Roshan Perera and Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana

The available foreign reserves of the country can be used to either repay foreign creditors or to finance imports of essential goods and services required by its citizens. This is the dilemma facing Sri Lanka today. Repaying the full value of the bond using the limited foreign reserves available would provide a windfall gain to those currently holding these bonds. But it will be at great cost to the citizens of the country who will face shortages of essentials like food, medicine, and fuel. 

In these circumstances, it is in the best interest of all its citizens, for the government to defer payment of the US dollar 500 million International Sovereign Bond (ISB) coming due on 18 January 2022, until the economy can fully recover and rebuild. 

Just as an individual with co-morbidities is more vulnerable to develop severe illness if infected with COVID-19 and more to likely require hospitalisation and even treatment in an ICU, Sri Lanka was vulnerable to economic shocks long before COVID-19 struck. The country was already facing several macroeconomic challenges. Muted economic growth. An untenable fiscal position. Although a tough consolidation programme was put in place to bring government finances to a more sustainable path, sweeping tax changes implemented at the end of 2019 reversed this process, with adverse consequences to government revenue collection. Weak external sector due to high foreign debt repayments and inadequate foreign reserves to service these debts. COVID-19 only exacerbated these macroeconomic challenges. And like a patient who gets over the worst of COVID-19 has a long road to recovery; the economy of Sri Lanka faces many challenges to get back on track. 

The onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, only worsened an already grim macroeconomic situation. The country lost the confidence of international markets, and the ability of the sovereign to rollover its external debt became difficult if not impossible. In these circumstances, there was a solid argument for a sovereign debt restructuring. But the response from the government and the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) was a firm “No”. The argument was that Sri Lanka never defaulted on its debt and it was not going to do so now. The official position was also that the government had a ‘plan’ to repay its debt and hence there was no reason to engage in a debt restructuring exercise. However, Sri Lanka faced high debt sustainability risks: the debt to GDP ratio at 110% was one of the highest historically and interest payments to government revenue at over 70% was one of the highest in the world. 

Table 1: Summary of External Sector Performance Q1 – 2017 to 2021 ($mn)

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the country and its citizens for the government to defer payment on its debt and use its limited foreign reserves to ensure uninterrupted supply of essential imports. But this requires a plan. To minimise the cost to the economy, the government must immediately engage its creditors in a debt restructuring exercise. This will require a debt sustainability analysis (DSA) by a credible agency to identify the resources required for debt relief and the economic adjustment needed to put the country back on a sustainable path. This will be critical to bring creditors to the negotiating table and provide them comfort that the country is able and willing to repay its debt obligations in the future. 

The cost of not restructuring is much higher. A non-negotiated default (if and when the country runs out of options to service its debt) would lead to a greater loss of output, loss of access to financing or high cost of future borrowing for the sovereign. It could even spill over to the domestic banking sector, triggering a banking or financial crisis. 

The consequences are clear. What will we choose?

Dr. Roshan Perera, Senior Research Fellow, Advocata Institute and former Director, Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana, Chair, Academic Programme, Advocata Institute and former Economic Adviser at the World Bank. He was the Director and the main author of the 1987 World Development Report on Trade and Industrialisation.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute, or anyone affiliated with the institute.