Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1431464
LEGAL Notice 419, entitled 'Exemption from Tax on Prop- erty Transfers (Set-off of Tax Arrears) Rules, 2021' provides that persons who have tax ar- rears can set off those arrears by transferring tax due on property transfers. The amnesty is only applicable to those who have tax arrears in case of transfers of immovable property subject to tax under Article 5A (default 8% tax on the transfer value of the property) of the Income Tax Act and which was originally acquired before 31 March 2021 and which is trans- ferred by the 31 December 2022. This unusual step was lam- basted by Malta Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Financial Services Practitioners, saying that any amnesty which effectively rewards defaulting taxpayers is patently inequitable and should not be implemented. In a separate statement, the Mal- ta Institute of Accountants also criticised the measure which it said is "tantamount to a tax am- nesty" and "a slap in the face" to all professionals and entrepre- neurs who operate their business in full compliance with legal and ethical considerations. The Mal- ta Chamber of Commerce also objected to the amnesty which it labelled 'unfair', while the Malta Developers Association disasso- ciated itself from the measure. Describing the amnesty as dis- criminatory, the Opposition is taking the unusual step of chal- lenging the legal notice in parlia- ment. A tax amnesty is normally giv- en when there is a large number of people who are in an uncom- fortably illegal position and the government itself would benefit from it in the long run – such as when amnesties were given to all those who had undeclared amounts of money deposited abroad. In this case the so called 'am- nesty' only benefits a few and does not cover all those who have tax arrears. As a press release issued by the PN states, "no distinction was made between those who may have raked up arrears because of temporary problems beyond their control and other 'less gen- uine' cases." Let us compare two cases: A (person or a company) works solely as a developer and as a re- sult of all sales being subject to withholding tax, A has no tax ar- rears. B has various commercial activities that include develop- ment of property. When A sells a property, A is charged with- holding tax; but when B does the same, the withholding tax is set off against tax arrears, while the sale of the property is not really taxed in any way. And what about C who owes substantial tax arrears but has no property to sell? The discriminatory nature of this peculiar amnesty cannot be clearer. I don't think it is a gen- uine amnesty really, because it gives a free ride to some and not to others. Like many others, I had thought that with the appoint- ment of Clyde Caruana as min- ister responsible for finance, the country had turned a new page and started to consider taxation and tax evaders in a serious, sen- sible and logical way. Not so, it seems. Whoever concocted this so- called amnesty must have for- gotten that Malta was grey-listed by FATF and that so many inter- national bodies are monitoring our taxation system. Or do they think that these bodies are only interested in our taxation system that lures foreigners to Malta when it is in competition with other countries? Does the government believe that those who are monitoring our financial system couldn't care less in areas where only taxation of Maltese people is regulated? So we must have a se- rious taxation regime for foreign investors... but they don't mind a charade in the case of tax paid by the locals? Even if all foreign monitoring bodies have this mentality – which I seriously doubt – surely the government of Malta should avoid raising the hackles of Maltese businessmen in this way. The suspicion arises, therefore, that this 'amnesty' was made for the benefit of a few bażużli – the chosen ones who are in the good books of Robert Abela's govern- ment. Actually, it is very difficult not to believe otherwise, even though I have no inkling of who these might be. The elephant in the dock The petitioner in the most important animal rights case of the 21st century is Happy, an el- ephant in her 50s, living in her enclosure in New York City's Bronx Zoo. After a lifetime spent in captivity, separated from her family and again and again from her closest companions, Happy is getting her day in court. She was born in Thailand dur- ing the Vietnam War, captured, locked in a cage, trucked and loaded onto a 747 that crossed the Pacific until it landed in the United States. She spent her earliest years in Florida, not far from Disney World, before she was shipped to Texas. In 1977, when she was 5 or 6, she was hauled onto another truck and shipped to the Bronx Zoo in New York. In the wild, barely weaned, she'd have been living with her family – her sisters, her cous- ins, her aunts, and her moth- er – touching and nuzzling and rubbing and smelling and calling to each other almost constantly. Instead, after she landed at the zoo and for years after, she gave rides to the schoolchildren of New York and performed tricks, sometimes wearing a blue-and- black polka-dotted dress. Today, in her 50s and retired, she lives alone in a one-acre enclosure in a bleak, bamboo-shrouded Bronx Zoo exhibit ironically called 'Wild Asia.' The New York Court of Ap- peals will soon consider whether her continued detention is un- lawful. Lawyers have filed a ha- beas corpus petition for Happy, arguing that she deserves legal personhood. That premise may sound weird – until one con- siders that U.S. law recognizes both corporations and ships as persons. A "person" is something of a le- gal fiction. Pro-life activists have argued that embryos and foetus- es are persons. Some forms of artificial intelligence might one day become persons. But can an elephant be a per- son? No case like this has ever reached so high a court, any- where in the English-speaking world. The elephant suit might be a strange case, but it is by no means frivolous. It raises the question about the relationship between humans, animals, and the natural world and concerns the future of life on Earth. These are questions that exist- ing laws are not able to address. 7 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 21 NOVEMBER 2021 OPINION A very peculiar 'amnesty' Michael Falzon micfal45@gmail.com Finance Minister Clyde Caruana