Introduction
In today’s complex business landscape, financial and operational risks often lead to situations where invoices for goods or services remain unpaid. Recognizing this reality, tax legislations in many jurisdictions allow for tax deductions on bad and doubtful debts. This practice aligns with generally accepted accounting principles, particularly under IFRS 9: Financial Instruments, which requires entities to assess their trade receivables for impairment and charge any losses to the income statement. The goal is to ensure that entities are not taxed on uncollected revenue.
The Nigerian Context
In Nigeria, the tax deductibility of bad and doubtful debts is enshrined in the Companies Income Tax Act (CITA), Personal Income Tax Act (PITA), and Petroleum Profit Tax Act (PPTA). Section 24(f) of CITA, for example, allows corporate taxpayers to deduct bad debts incurred during a trade or business period, provided these debts are deemed bad to the satisfaction of the tax authorities. However, the vague language “to the satisfaction of the Board” has led to inconsistent application and interpretation, often disadvantaging taxpayers.
The Challenges Faced by Taxpayers
A recent case illustrates the issue: the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) initially opposed a taxpayer’s decision to deduct bad debts owed by a liquidated customer. Despite the taxpayer’s efforts to recover the debt, the FIRS insisted on stringent conditions, such as engaging a debt collector or initiating legal action, before allowing the deduction. This discretionary approach raises questions about fairness and reasonableness in the exercise of tax authority powers.
Legal Perspectives and Global Practices
Courts in Nigeria and other jurisdictions have provided guidance on the reasonable exercise of discretionary powers by tax authorities. In Chief D.A. Eboreime V Mr. B.S. Arumeme, the court emphasized that discretion must be exercised reasonably and fairly, not arbitrarily. Similarly, in Margareth Stitch v AG Federation & Board of Customs & Excise, the court held that statutory discretion must align with fairness in the given circumstances.
Internationally, courts have supported a balanced approach. For instance, in Budget Rent A Car Ltd v CIR, a New Zealand court ruled that determining whether a debt is bad should involve a subjective, prudent business judgment. Such rulings suggest that tax authorities should accept reasonable explanations and documentation for bad or doubtful debts.
Recommendations for Fair Practice
To create a more consistent and fair approach, Nigerian tax authorities could look to practices in the UK, where bad debts and provisions for doubtful debts are deductible if they align with allowable revenue expenditure and accounting conventions. This approach would reduce arbitrary decision-making and provide clearer guidelines for taxpayers.
Final Thoughts
Taxpayers facing stringent conditions from tax authorities regarding bad and doubtful debt deductions can seek judicial review if they believe these powers are being misused. However, to avoid protracted legal battles, it is advisable for taxpayers to maintain thorough documentation supporting their claims. A collaborative approach between tax authorities and taxpayers, guided by fairness and reasonableness, will foster a more conducive business environment in Nigeria.
Effective management of tax audits and clear guidelines on the deductibility of bad and doubtful debts are essential for a fair and efficient tax system. By adopting transparent practices and ensuring discretionary powers are exercised judiciously, Nigeria can create a more predictable and supportive environment for businesses to thrive.
For professional advice on Accountancy, Transfer Pricing, Tax, Assurance, Outsourcing, online accounting support, Company Registration, and CAC matters, please contact Inner Konsult Ltd at www.innerkonsult.com at Lagos, Ogun state Nigeria offices, or www.sunmoladavid.com. You can also reach us via WhatsApp at +2348038460036.
