Will it be a mere superficial change in terms of nomenclature or it is going to be something substantively different than a mere substitution of the word, federal, for the word, central?
So far, the news reports on the subject have been sketchy and merely say that the federal government is in the process of converting the CBR into a FBR so as to regulate matters relating to the fiscal, investment and economic policies, administration, management, imposition and collection of federal taxes, duties and levies at the national level.
These reports also say that the federal government would, in the foreseeable future, be piloting an act called the Federal Board of Revenue Act and that the said Act shall come into force on such date as may fixed by notification in the official gazette.
There shall also be an advisory board that would comprise of the minister for finance and revenue or the advisor to the prime minister on finance and revenue as the chairman, the secretaries finance, revenue and the establishment division with three more members from the public and private sectors.
Then, these reports delve upon the qualifications of a potential member as someone who is possessed of all the qualities of integrity, expertise, experience and eminence in any relevant field including without limitation, finance, law, accountancy, taxation or economics. The chairman of the advisory board will also be a member of the board.
The next thing proposed is that the newly designated board of revenue i.e. the new FBR may obtain approval of the advisory board in matters relating to broader aspects of finance and administration. The advisory board shall consider only such matters as are referred to it by the proposed FBR. It also states that in its advisory nature the advisory board may issue necessary advice from time to time.
This part of the draft proposal attempts inadequately to clarify any overlapping that appears inherent in a situation that seeks to create two boards that are being designed to achieve the same objectives. In doing so, it only indicates the confusion that is bound to arise by setting up an advisory board, which indeed is likely to act more vicariously in having its way in the implementation of the financial and taxation policies of the sitting government.
In short, the advisory board will be a sort of super-board over and above the CBR as it presently stands or for that matter any new FBR if that terminology was to be eventually adopted in replacement of the CBR.
The advisory board from the looks of things, appears quite obviously designed to be an upper tier of senior experts and mandarins and trusted private and public sector people who without being in actual day-to-day executive control of the Board of Revenue will blissfully proceed in trying to fulfill their role as watchdogs over the performance of the members of the Board of Revenue.
But any situation that has to contend with two layers of boards is bound to be facing any number of operational difficulties. For instance, if there was indeed a switching-over to the new nomenclature proposed for describing the CBR that in itself is likely to generate a great deal of expectations that the proposed FBR would somehow henceforth have to live up to its name and in real terms become truly federal in its character as well as in its very composition and working.
The provinces, to say the least, are more likely to stake claims for their respective provincial representation so as to make the whole new arrangement appear to their public and the electorate as providing a genuine federalised face. The making of any organisation to appear in the public eyes as federal with a mere switch in nomenclature is easier said than done. Naturally, every province would most certainly vie to shove some of its representatives on to the advisory board as well as into the top personnel of the CBR/FBR. There is therefore no real getting away from this sort of situation.
Furthermore, another question that arises ipso facto is that if such a high powered advisory board is eventually imposed on the CBR/FBR, what will happen to the roles of the ministries of finance and revenue as the administrative ministries for the present CBR under the Rules of Business of the federal government.
These rules are indeed extremely hard to change or amend. The ministry of law and justice being the guardian of the legal framework under which the federal government functions tends to resist any erosion of the Rules of Business which it jealously tries to safeguard.
Surely, the chairman of the advisory board even if he happens to be the minister of finance or the advisor to the prime minister for finance and revenue cannot in his person alone epitomise the ministries of finance and revenue as such under the Rules of Business.
Consequently, the scheme being proposed of substituting the CBR with a new FBR placed under a super-board described as an advisory board can only spell trouble ahead for the introduction of such a novel and strange arrangement. It does not really seem to be a very workable proposition. It will be extremely hard to fit it into the over-riding scheme of the rules of business of the federal government no matter how much fine-tuning is resorted to towards making the scheme work.
At the end of the day, the federal government would be well advised to give the conversion proposal a second thought and continue with the available mechanism of a Central Board of Revenue. It will also save them a great deal of unnecessary expenditures on stationery and printing and also avoid having to give any number of public explanations for proposing something that one could easily do without.