Is luxury tax justified?

Published Sep 15, 2013 08:30am

ON June 29, the Punjab Provincial Assembly passed the Punjab Finance Act 2013; under Section 10 of this law a certain ‘luxury tax’ has been imposed on residential houses within a specific region, measuring two kanals or above.

This new luxury tax requires payment of Rs500,000 by the owners of houses measuring two kanals or above; Rs1m for four kanals and above; and Rs1.5m for eight kanals and above. It will be recovered from all current houses and shall be obtained every time such houses are constructed or change ownership.

At first glance the idea seems interesting: to tax the ‘luxury’ enjoyed by the wealthy through living in their lavish homes with large gardens and private tennis courts. It does seem justified that these luxuries are being taxed in order to help avert the financial crisis of our nation. But is it?

Alas, the truth is very different, the reality much bleaker and the situation quite complex. In fact many people living in such houses either acquired them at the time of partition or inherited them; others purchased them in better days, when their businesses were flourishing; brothers bought a single large house together instead of multiple smaller ones. Neither are they flourishing businessmen, nor are they extremely wealthy.

Many people living in such houses do so out of sentiment, while others plan to sell them when their kids grow up, holding them as security against educational expenses.

With businesses failing in Pakistan, job opportunities dwindling and costs of living skyrocketing, they are barely holding on to their homes, hoping that tomorrow might bring a better day. Alas; tomorrow has brought them the luxury tax!

A luxury is defined as some expensive yet unnecessary thing that adds to one’s enjoyment of life. A house is a necessity, and many people living in these large houses are indeed there merely out of necessity. A lot of people with large families still live together jointly and therefore need a larger place to live, not out of luxury but necessity.

A lot of large houses can be seen in crumbling condition, unpreserved and barely standing, yet people live there not out of choice but out of necessity. You do not see large cars in their driveways; you see beat-up old cars, cars that are remnants of a prosperous past, now crumbling away along with everything else in their lives.

For those able to pay, these taxes are not bothersome. But many people cannot afford them. For them paying the tax may mean selling the car or dipping into the savings account.

Furthermore, many cases of incorrect charging have come forward: Rs1m are being charged for properties much less than four kanals. Widows, who are exempted from this tax, are being charged with the same.

From a legal perspective, the provisions of Section 10 of the Act are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 8, 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

They are discriminatory and arbitrary because they only target a specific region, not affecting properties of similar nature otherwise. They are illegal because laws cannot be made to have retrospective effect, ie a law cannot create a liability on an act done in the past.

The luxury tax is applied to the construction of large houses, but it cannot, legally, be applied to houses already built as the owners of such houses would and could not have known of this tax when they constructed them.

Furthermore, the Government of Punjab, by virtue of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, continues to levy and collect property tax which is payable on the annual value of the property as is subjectively assessed by the assessing authority.

This is compulsorily exacted from the citizens and, unless exempted, all immovable properties are amenable to property tax. Payment of an additional tax, noticeably called a luxury tax on houses (houses being a necessity, not a luxury) amounts to double taxation, which is prohibited by law.

Furthermore, in accordance with the law, for the purpose of taxation the person’s capacity and ability must be assessed before levying it. The luxury tax is an additional, compulsory exaction of money from the public with disregard to the ability of the taxpayer to pay.

The incidence and levy of this tax is therefore against the underlying theory of beneficial taxation which entails that whilst taxing, subjective considerations need assessment, ie the person’s capacity to pay, in addition to the nature and size of the property being taxed.

According to lawyer Umer Ali Khan who is working on a petition against its imposition, this tax is also oblivious to the possibility of the residential property being inherited by such individuals who cannot afford to pay it. An inability to pay this tax would entail repercussions and eventuate forceful sequestration of the property in stark violation of fundamental rights.

Therefore, it is sufficient to say that the imposition of this luxury tax is a prime example of bad lawmaking and many people will suffer if it continues to remain in force. It needs to be struck down or severely redrafted; a number of writ petitions have already reached the honourable Lahore High Court seeking justice, pleading that this discriminatory law be struck down.

Thus, it now rests with the honourable Lahore High Court to use its constitutional powers and save the day.

The writer is an advocate.


Do you have information you wish to share with Dawn.com? You can email our News Desk to share news tips, reports and general feedback. You can also email the Blog Desk if you have an opinion or narrative to share, or reach out to the Special Projects Desk to send us your Photos, or Videos.

More From This Section

Not on their watch

The political and military leadership knows it can happen again. It knows it can’t stop it from happening again.

Of Cuban tenacity

The phone rang — with good news from Fidel Castro’s land. A new chapter had begun.

Comments (6) Closed




fawad mumtaz
Sep 15, 2013 08:52am

How fair is sucha tax that property in DHA, Bahria Towm (Bilawal House). EME , Cantt. and Rawind (SHARIF PALACE) is EXEMPT from this so called luxury tax......... SUO MOTO NEEDED here

deendayal.lulla
Sep 15, 2013 01:25pm

There are so many such laws in India also. There is more property tax if you are living on the main road,or an infrastructure project like a flyover comes up. Is it the fault of a property owner if a flyover comes up after several years of buying the property? Housing is a basic necessity,but the government does not think so. Why ministers are living in big bunglows,judges also. There is luxury tax on hotels also. Where does one live if one goes out of town? What you get in a hotel - a place to sleep,and take bath,and you go for your work - say for medical check-up,getting visa,job interview ,among others.

Abdus Salam Khan
Sep 15, 2013 04:33pm

Absolutely on the button! There is no legal or moral justification for such an exorbitant tax-a better name would be an extortion- by the government.

Agha Ata
Sep 15, 2013 07:04pm

That is not fair. Not at all. If we had to pay taxes, how could we buy your luxuries?
Millions would be deprived of their earnings, if we stop buying and the producing factories stop working.
Besides, when you import luxuries from abroad, you, in return, export our products, otherwise who is going to buy those cheap quality products? We the luxury consumers are the back bone of this society. Please don't ask us to pay taxes.

farooq
Sep 17, 2013 02:03am

In Canada I pay about 1% of the house value as yearly tax to the local government. However, it is not applicable in Pakistan as we under declare the values of our property. In my opinion, an owner should be allowed to access the value of his/her property and pay 1% of it as annual tax in four quarterly instalments. However, the condition attached to self assessment should be that any citizen could approach the government to purchase the same property if he offers more than 1.5 times the self-assessed value of the property, submitting 30% of the bid money as deposit to a designated court. The owner and the government will be by law obliged to make the sale legal within three months unless the owner pays the new bidder 50% of the value of the bid to retain his property. However, as most of our Pakistani property owners are themselves in the glass house - who will be the first one to throw the first stone !!!!

roomi
Sep 17, 2013 04:05pm

well i dont think it is an exorbitant and discriminatory tax anyway. i am unable to understand why we people loath to pay our taxes. for your kind information the tax to gdp ratio of pakistan is the least in whole of south asia. it is a flawed conception that people who own such a big houses in posh areas are unable to pay tax. the question of retrospective enforcement of taxes is a bullshit. it is a tax not a punishment my dear advocate.