Sometimes people don’t have any interest in what you have to say unless money is involved. So I say to the banks and business community in general, that they should take stock of the provisions of the Property Tax Act 2009 because there is plenty money to be lost if the act’s provisions are carried into effect and enforced by the State. I will explain further below.
The Ministry of Finance deserves credit for appreciating the wisdom in extending the “deadline” for the filing of returns and documents that citizens have been asked to submit in preparation for the Government’s implementation of the property tax as set out in the Property Tax Act 2009.
I say “deadline” since the ministry has, on more than one occasion, explicitly stated that the request for the supply of documents is non-mandatory.
Further, several lawyers, including the writer, have stated unequivocally that no fine whatsoever can be imposed upon citizens for the present failure to file a return.
Before the possibility of a fine can arise, citizens and property owners must be specifically and individually written to by the commissioner of valuations and asked to file the required return.
A substitute for this statutory process cannot be a TTPost worker dropping off an unaddressed, unsigned form in one’s mailbox and the Valuation Division’s employees going on television in order to terrorise the population into believing that some penalty is attached to the failure to fill out and submit the present form.
It was therefore not surprising that on Friday Justice Seepersad imposed a temporary stay on the request for citizens to file the requested form.
One hopes that the “breathing space” that has been given will permit a sober examination of the Property Tax Act 2009 by all interests in the country apart from the average citizen, since the act has very significant financial effects for others whose businesses touch and concern interests in land.
Indecent rush to pass the act
The Property Tax Act was hurriedly passed with a simple majority by the Manning regime in the Parliament in 2009.
The act was passed in the House of Representatives on December 11, 2009, in the Senate on December 30, 2009, and was assented to by President Max Richards on Old Year’s day, December 31, 2009.
That indecent rush no doubt prevented sober consideration and discussion of the act’s provisions by the Parliament as well as the various interest groups in the society who have a very real interest in the act’s day-to-day operation.
The act’s passing with a simple majority is startling, to say the least, having regard to the very real ways in which its provisions could infringe upon the citizen’s right to enjoyment of property and her right not to be deprived thereof without due process as set out in Section 4 of the Constitution.
I have no doubt that our local courts and the Privy Council would be loathe to uphold the constitutionality of a statute which deprives a citizen of her property without having prior access to the courts to determine the validity and the extent of such deprivation.
Raising alarm bells over Section 41
As I said above, I seek to raise the alarm bells. Business interest, especially the banks, ought to be very concerned about at least one provision of the act, namely Section 41.
Under Section 41, where the tax is not paid on property for five years, the property is subject to forfeiture by the State “in absolute dominion, free and discharged from all rights, estates, interests, equities and claims of any other person.”
Two points need to be driven home here.
Using a property worth $1,500,000 as an example, the annual property tax for such a property would be about $1,600, and over five years this would amount to no more than $8,000.
The Government is saying that for an outstanding $8,000 (a) they have a right to forfeit the full value of your $1,500,000 property and (b) to do so free and clear of all other interests in it eg, mortgages!
This means that the homeowner not only loses his $1,500,000 property, but if it is mortgaged, the bank would also lose its security and would have to sue the homeowner personally on the mortgage covenants.
This reality must raise eyebrows of those stopping to think about it. The State’s arrogation of such draconian power onto itself cannot be right, just, proportionate or constitutional in modern-day T&T.
A little sympathy for the population could go a long way
I use Section 41 to illustrate my point and to raise concern, but there are several other provisions in the recovery provisions of the act that must be of concern to everyone, in these difficult economic times.
The average struggling citizen who has worked hard to secure a home for his family, the leveraged businessman who is struggling to keep his business afloat, and even our sometimes-predatory banks who are more interested in protecting their security in mortgaged property than in pursuing asset-less citizens through the court system.
All need to become fully aware of the act’s provisions and speak out to dissuade the Government from implementing the act in its present form.
The Government must not be obstinate.
In these difficult times a little sympathy for the population would go a long way, if there is an interest in building goodwill.
While reasonable citizens appreciate that the country’s revenue streams are now trickling, and want to play their part in helping the ship of state to remain afloat, they do not deserve to be taken advantage of by oppressive legislation.
What may have been distastefully rushed through the Parliament by the Manning government can be compassionately reviewed and amended before implementation by the Rowley government.