CHAIRMAN of the Alliance for Change, Nigel Hughes, has come in for criticisms again after making a public disclosure that he only paid $5M in income taxes last year back into the public coffers.
Hughes made the comment after a member of the public allegedly upbraided him for his conduct and poor contributions during the fourth edition of the corruption debate series aired on National Communications Network on Sunday evening.
The member of the public had noted that Hughes was attempting to cast aspersions on all and sundry but did not necessarily expose his shortcomings with respect to paying his taxes.
“I paid $5M income tax last year and I challenge the Guyana Revenue Authority…I don’t get the government work”, he disclosed on the programme.
Already, scores of lawyers and other political commentators have said that they marvelled at the disclosure, arguing that this could not be the sum total of his income tax payments given the scope of his operations and the prominence of the cases that he provides defence services for.
“I would call on the Guyana Revenue Authority to launch an investigation into the authenticity of Hughes income tax payments…further I am convinced that something may be amiss here, and could provide insight into his disclosure”, a prominent legal luminary said after viewing the debates.
But the AFC Chairman further stated strongly that he was “not familiar with many lawyers that paid $5M in income taxes for last year or previous years”, after eyebrows first rose on the programme.
The comments came on the heels of revelations made by the Guyana Revenue Authority which accused one of Hughes businesses of tax evasion. The Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) obtained two judgments against Harvest Company Ltd, a company under the legal stewardship of the AFC Chairman for failure to remit PAYE and one judgment under Section 44 of the Value Added Tax Act No.10 of 2005.
Hughes had rushed to the media alleging discrimination and misrepresentation by the Guyana Revenue Authority, which he accused of singling him out for special treatment. He even accused the commissioner general of exposing his lack of independence and “overt enthusiasm to do his master’s bidding”. The Commissioner General, Khurshid Sattaur, had taken umbrage at statements by Hughes explaining that he was engaging in a publicity stunt, noting that the company has defaulted in remitting workers VAT and PAYE to enrich themselves.
He vowed that the GRA will not be intimidated by anyone as it seeks to carry out its lawful duties.
Noting that the GRA was a fully professional body, Sattaur flayed Hughes for accusing the entity of being politically-motivated in seeking to redeem the taxes his company defaulted on.
The GRA had obtained two judgments against Harvest Company Ltd for failure to remit PAYE; and one judgment, under Section 44 of the Value Added Tax Act, Number 10 of 2005. The particulars of the said judgments are as follows:
“On the 7th October, 2011 (Action Number 814/CD 2011), judgment was granted for the sum of $621,967 (being PAYE principal in the sum of $468,183, penalties in the sum of $106,814 and interest in the sum of $46,970) for the periods January to August 2010. On the 24th June, 2009 (Action Number 105/CD 2009), judgment was granted for the sum of $7,236,032 (being PAYE principal in the sum of $2,337,110.00, penalties in the sum of $2,692,231 and interest in the sum of $2,206,691) for the periods August 2005 to December 2005 to July 2006  to December 2006 and January 2007 to December 2007. On 7th January, 2010 Section 44 Certificate was filed for the sum of $1,439,644 (being VAT in the sum of $942,803 and interest thereon in the sum of $496,841) for the periods April 2007 to July 2007 and December 2007; January to June, September and November 2008; January 2009, February 2009 and April to July 2009.
“On 13th October, 2011 a writ of summons was filed in the High Court to recover $4,429,450 (being PAYE in the sum of $1,230,727 and interest and penalties thereon in the sum of $3,198,723) for the periods January to December 2008 and July to December 2009. On the 18th January, 2012 Justice Persaud granted an Unless Order, giving the company five days to file an affidavit in defence. On the same day, the company filed the said affidavit, denying that the PAYE in the sum of $1,203,727 was deducted. The matter was called on 24th July for pre-emptory trial and has been adjourned to 17th September, 2012.”