Small businesses risk being relatively heavily burdened by the proposed costs for tax collection. NPS parliamentarian Jeffrey Lau warned of this on Friday during the deliberations on the Collection Act and the Costs Act for Tax Collection in De Nationale Assemblée (Suriname’s parliament). He called for clear cost limits and greater consideration of the financial capacity of small businesses.
According to Lau, the proposed rules do not sufficiently take into account the differences between a sole proprietorship, a medium-sized enterprise and a multinational. Particularly in the case of small tax debts, fixed collection costs may constitute a substantial part of the amount owed. Larger enterprises generally have greater financial and administrative capacity to meet their obligations, he said.
“The efficiency of the state must not be financed by the financial downfall of the small entrepreneur,” Lau stated. He advocated costs proportionate to the debt and called for potentially longer deadlines for small enterprises.
The parliamentarian also considers the proposed calculation problematic in cases of high tax debts. According to him, the draft provides for a fee of one percent of the outstanding debt for the service of an enforcement order, with a minimum of SRD 500 and no maximum. In the case of a debt of SRD 10 million, one such service would therefore cost SRD 100,000.
Lau asked why the same action should become so much more expensive as the debt increases. He proposed setting a maximum amount and preferably applying a rate under which the percentage decreases as the debt becomes larger. In addition, he wants to prevent double costs from being charged for the same work.
Minister Adelien Wijnerman of Finance and Planning acknowledged that the calculation method deserves attention. A percentage-based rate can lead to substantial costs for high debts, while a minimum amount can be relatively burdensome for small debts.
The minister cited limiting very high costs and preventing unnecessary accumulation as points requiring attention. According to her, a taxpayer must also receive a comprehensible specification, so that it is clear which action was carried out, on what basis the costs are calculated and how the amount is determined.
The debate also revealed a difference of opinion over the role of parliament in setting the rates. Lau invoked Article 155 of the Constitution and argued that parliament itself must establish essential financial obligations.
NDP parliamentarian Raymond Sapoen countered that collection costs are fees for legal and administrative work and are not automatically equivalent to tax rates. Wijnerman endorsed that distinction and stated that Article 155 does not directly apply to these costs as such.
No specific maximum amount was announced during this round. The government announced amendments for the further deliberations. Neither law was adopted during the meeting.
