Questions raised over appointment of 22 overseas advisers to Federal Tax Ombudsman

Questions have been raised over the appointment of 22 overseas advisers associated with the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO),

ISLAMABAD: Questions have been raised over the appointment of 22 overseas advisers associated with the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO), with the Judicial Activism Panel seeking detailed information about their appointments, mandates, performance and tax compliance.

A formal application has been submitted to the FTO Secretariat by constitutional lawyer Muhammad Azhar Siddique on behalf of the Judicial Activism Panel under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, according to documents available with Minute Mirror.

The applicant has sought detailed information under 11 separate heads and requested that the relevant record be provided within 10 working days of receipt of the application.

The panel has questioned the legal basis, selection procedure and approval process through which the overseas advisers were appointed. It has asked the FTO Secretariat to disclose the applicable law, rules, policy and criteria governing the appointments, as well as the competent authority that approved them.

The application also seeks details regarding the functional responsibilities and powers of the overseas advisers. Questions have been raised about the legal basis for individuals based abroad to use the name and office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman and the extent of their authority while performing their functions outside Pakistan.

The panel has further requested complete information regarding complaints received and disposed of by the overseas advisers, including their respective performance and disposal records.

Questions over multiple appointments

The application also draws attention to the presence of multiple advisers in certain locations. According to the application, two advisers are listed in Baghdad, Riyadh, Warsaw and Canberra, while four advisers are associated with Abidjan for different West African countries.

The panel has questioned the rationale behind these appointments and sought an explanation for assigning four advisers from Abidjan to cover Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

According to Annexure-A attached to the application, the overseas advisers are listed across several locations, including Amman, Buenos Aires, Bucharest, Baghdad, the Philippines, Brunei, Colombo, Niamey, Glasgow, Riyadh, Warsaw, Canberra, Abidjan, Vancouver and Dhaka.

Tax compliance and assets

A major part of the information request concerns the tax status of the 22 overseas advisers.

The panel has asked whether the advisers are included in Pakistan’s Active Taxpayers List (ATL) and sought details of taxes paid by each individual in Pakistan during the past five years.

It has also requested information regarding their income and assets, as well as the assets and income of their spouses, where applicable.

Muhammad Azhar Siddique has maintained in the application that transparency concerning appointments and tax compliance is important where individuals are associated with a public constitutional office. The application invokes the constitutional right of access to information under Article 19-A.

The panel has also questioned whether the concept of overseas advisers is consistent with Pakistan’s international commitments and argued that disclosure of the relevant record is a matter of public interest.

Legal action warning

The applicant has warned that failure to provide the requested information, or submission of an unsatisfactory or evasive response, could lead to further legal proceedings.

The application states that the applicant may approach the Pakistan Information Commission under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, and may also invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199.

It also proposes bringing the matter to the attention of relevant institutions, including the FBR, Establishment Division, NAB and the President of Pakistan.

The application clarifies that it has been filed in the public interest and is not intended as a personal grievance against the FTO Secretariat or any individual adviser.

The Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat has yet to issue a response to the application. The 10-working-day period will begin from the date the application is received by the relevant office.