Banner Online News

Analysts say enforcement powers, tax thresholds, appeal rules and oversight safeguards may have been altered after passage — and are urging a full line-by-line review.

Fresh controversy has trailed Nigeria’s newly gazetted tax reform laws, as investigators allege that key provisions in the published versions do not match what the National Assembly approved.

Reviews by policy analysts point to four major areas where the gazette appears to differ: expanded enforcement powers, lower reporting thresholds, new pre-appeal payment conditions, and the quiet removal of parliamentary oversight clauses.

At the centre of the storm is the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS). The gazetted text allegedly gives the agency sweeping powers, including the authority to arrest taxpayers and freeze bank accounts without court orders. Critics insist such provisions were never cleared by lawmakers and go far beyond standard “investigation and enforcement” clauses.

Discrepancies have also been flagged in taxable income thresholds. The gazette reportedly lowers reporting requirements from ₦50 million to ₦25 million for individuals, and from ₦250 million to ₦100 million for companies, changes analysts say were not part of the approved bill.

Another flashpoint is a clause requiring taxpayers to pay 20 per cent of any disputed assessment before filing an appeal. Stakeholders warn that tying access to the Tax Appeal Tribunal to an upfront payment could deter legitimate challenges and undermine fairness.

Equally troubling to observers is the alleged removal of oversight provisions that empowered the National Assembly to demand reports and summon revenue officials. Critics argue that stripping out these safeguards weakens accountability at the heart of tax administration.

Civil society groups, tax professionals and some lawmakers are now demanding transparency, calling for an official, side-by-side comparison of the gazetted laws and the versions passed on the floor of the National Assembly.

Government authorities have yet to provide a comprehensive explanation. But analysts say only a public clarification will restore confidence and ensure taxpayers are governed by laws that were truly passed — not altered after the fact.