This the season and although the Kenyan government may not have
the magical resources of Santa Claus, it is an opportune time to
communicate our tax wish list.
The Income Tax Act has
not been reviewed for decades and an exercise is now underway to
overhaul the law, simplify, modernise and rationalise it to support
growth of the economy to achieve Vision 2030, improve administration and
broaden the tax base.
We have zeroed in on a few
provisions where the rules have not kept pace with the swift changes to
the Kenyan and global economy. This is by no means a prediction of what
might be released in the draft Income Tax bill, but more of a wish list
of tax provisions that affect a large chunk of taxpayers and would
benefit from a rethink.
1. Definition of a permanent home
An
individual working overseas is deemed a resident for tax purposes if
they have a permanent home in Kenya and were present in the country for
any period in a particular year of income.
A permanent
home has never been defined in the tax legislation nor clear guidelines
been issued and the result is that the interpretation of what a
permanent home may be very broad.
2.Lower tax rates for non-residents and on certain lump sum payments
Introducing a lower flat tax rate for non-resident individuals
would help to alleviate the tax burden where Kenya does not have a
Double Tax Agreement (“DTA”) with the individual’s home country.
Given
Kenya’s narrow DTA network, the burden to contribute to the exchequer
for individuals who are not in Kenya on long- term assignments should be
reduced.
Aside from making Kenya more competitive in
terms of attracting foreign investors (who may need to import skilled
labour), lower tax rates will also encourage greater tax compliance
among taxpayers.
We also suggest pruning the tax rates
on certain lump sum payments such as bonuses to, say 20 per cent, so as
to encourage employees to work harder.
For
termination and redundancy payments, the government can also consider
introducing an exemption on the first Sh 750,000, for example, to
cushion employees who are now out of a job.
Many
African countries have adopted such practices and it is generally true
that the fairer a taxpayer perceives the tax system to be, the better
the rate of compliance.
Moreover, there are many
examples around the world that show that lower tax rates do not
translate to low tax collection – the reverse is often the case and the
reduced residential rental income tax is a testament to this.
3. Taxation of overseas / unapproved stock options
This
is another area of ambiguity as the law does not deal with the key
questions around employee share schemes. We would ask that the Income
Tax Bill incorporate provisions on this subject, which align
international best practice such that the taxable gain for unregistered
employee share schemes arises at the date of exercise (and not vest) so
that employees are not out of pocket.
Time
apportionment relief of the equity gain should be permitted based on the
period the individual has spent in Kenya from the date of grant to date
of exercise, since it is only logical to classify the apportioned
income to be derived or accrued from Kenya.
Similarly
a corporate tax deduction is permissible where the costs of the stock
options are borne in Kenya, since these are bona fide staff costs.
This
should enable employers, in particular start-ups to effectively
incentivise their white collar workers and executives by linking their
pay with growing performance targets, indirectly spurring economic
growth since employers will foster a competitive environment for their
employees to deliver on their targets.
4.Housing
The
taxman should provide some respite such that the 15 per cent basis of
determining the housing benefit should only be applied where the Fair
Market Value (“FMV”) of housing cannot be determined.
This
is in the interests of fairness as it reduces the occasions where a
taxable benefit is valued on a ‘deemed’ basis rather than on its actual
value.
Even where the 15 per cent deemed basis is
applied, it should be calculated on the basic salary given the soaring
costs of living.
Otherwise, the value of the benefit
will fluctuate when the employee is still in the same house and in
certain months where lump sum payments are received, the taxpayer will
have to cough up additional tax on the housing benefit.
Such additional tax would essentially be arising on a non-existent or artificial benefit.
5.Inflationary adjustments
With
the exception of the doubling earlier this year of the mortgage
interest deduction threshold, other thresholds for tax incentives to
individuals have remained static for a number of years. Some of the
culprit items are:
uF0A7 The Home Ownership Savings Plan (“HOSP”) deduction of Sh 4,000 per month;
uF0A7 The pension deduction of Sh 20,000 per month;
uF0A7 The non-cash benefit threshold of Sh 3,000 per month;
uF0A7 Staff meals tax free threshold of Sh 4,000 per employee per month;
uF0A7
The tax free pension lump sum withdrawal amount of Sh 60,000 p.a. to a
maximum of Sh 600,000 as well as the tax free pension annuity amount of
Sh 25,000 per month; and
uF0A7 Insurance relief of up to KES 5,000 per month.
Whilst
it is laudable that the Government expanded the tax brackets and
personal relief by 10 per cent effective January 1, 2017 (and a further
similar increase applies from 1 January 2018), it must also muster the
courage to increase the various thresholds identified above to align
them with the prevailing inflation rates and cost of living indices.
The
above measures would be welcome indications that the Government
appreciates the need to cushion low/middle income earners and provide
them with the much needed relief.
It is commendable
that the Government has undertaken the Income Tax Act overhaul and
whilst we acknowledge the crucial role of the Government in tax reform,
we all have a part to play so as to protect domestic revenue and enhance
the tax base to achieve financial sovereignty.
Shreya Shah is a manager within the tax team at PwC.
No comments :
Post a Comment