RECENTLY, Edo state government secured a court order from which it secure a vital legal backing to effect and implement the terms of its land use charge. As part of the order, the state secured the right to seize certain properties whose owners are in default of payment. If the official statement from the state is anything to go by, it is clear that it will no longer hesitate in implementing the law particularly because it is legitimate tax regime backed by both state and federal laws. Substantially, the order, described by Francis Evbuomwan, commissioner for housing and urban development as “the first tranche…” of other court orders, should put a lid on the era of deliberate misinformation orchestrated by certain interest groups.
Suffice to say however, that since the land use charge came into effect, commentators with claims that it is designed to further pauperize the already struggling masses have not been in short supply. Mainly, their argument is that the burden of the tax will be pushed over to hapless tenants. Interestingly however, a peep into details of the act indicates that most of those opposed to it are either “mischief makers” who, according to as Louis Odion, commissioner for information, are determined to sustain an era of misinformation”, or are grossly ignorant of the whole concept. Whatever the case is, the point to be made here is that to the extent of our quest for a holistic approach to development in Edo or any other state, people must not sacrifice the overall intent of taxes and levies on the alter of partisan politics.
Rather than every property owner, the tax is targeted mainly at revenue generating property and or structures. As indicated in the act, real property includes parcel or land, an improvement on the land, wharf or pier while structure refers to a building or other things erected or placed in, on, over or under land, whether or not it is affixed to the land. In other words, it is targeted specifically at commercial property, residential property used also for commercial purposes, industrial premises of manufacturing concerns and specified owner-occupier property are the ones affected by the land use charge.
Property owned and occupied by religious bodies and approved strictly for public worship or non profit making religious education, public cemeteries and or burial grounds, public libraries, all official palaces of recognized traditional rulers, are excluded from the tax regime. Others include Owner-Occupier of a 100ft by 100ft maximum property in non choice urban area, Owner-Occupier of a100ft by 100ft in a non choice rural area, Community property for meeting activities and events, Owner-Occupier pensioner property and Owner-Occupier of over 65 years old.
In addition to the exemptions above, the governor may, by notice published in the state government official gazette, grant partial relief for a property occupied by non profit organizations or others used for games, sports, athletics or recreation for the benefit of the general public. In addition, he may, through same channel, grant waiver for a property used for charitable or benevolent purposes for the use of the general public.
But no owner-occupied property in areas designated as high brow choice area and government reservation area by the commissioner for land and housing is qualified for exemption except as specified in section 8(1) of the land use charge. However, a property may loose its exemption right if it changes its original status. For instance, if the land use status of a property changes, charges on the said property shall be prorated to the extent that the charge is payable only for the part of the year during which the property or part of it is not exempted.
Apart from the waivers mentioned above, the land use charge is not prohibitive as speculated by those opposed to its implementation. Rather, it is virtually an annual token rate of the property value. For instance, commercial property is expected to pay 0.44 per cent while a residential commercial property equivalent is rated 0.20 per cent. Industrial premises of manufacturing concern and owner-occupier residential property are rated 0.25 and 0.04 per cent respectively.
The property tax went further to offer a benevolent option to property owners who may not be satisfied with rates attached to their property by offering the right of appeal against assessment. Among others, the owner may appeal to the tax assessment review tribunal, if convinced that the said property is wrongly classified, the valuation is improper or if aggrieved by the calculation of the charge. The tribunal has the power to take a decision it deems appropriate based on evidences before it. However, notice must be given in a manner prescribed by the tribunal after a minimum of 10 per cent of the assessment has been paid.
Non-compliance with the law, obstruction of officials and damage of property identification tag attract adequate penalties. For instance, any person who refuses or neglects to comply with provisions of the law is liable to a fine of One Hundred Thousand Naira while the fine for a group is Five Hundred Thousand Naira. Same goes for anyone or group that hinders or obstruct property identification officer or anyone or group with intent to obliterate relevant records, remove from or damage or destroy a property identification plaque. Same goes to anyone or group who misrepresents property value or help to misrepresent a person’s chargeable capacity is liable to similar penalties. An option of three months imprisonment or both applies for corporate offenders.
It is a common knowledge that the now traditional monthly federation allocation has become unbearably insufficient for real development. Thankfully, under our statutes, states have the obligation of going beyond it to source funds. To that extent, they are obligated to collect specific and legitimate taxes, levies, etc, hitherto downplayed for whatever reason, from within. Certainly, the property tax, as adopted by the state government, is one of the many meant to help shore up its internally generated revenue. Unfortunately, its opponents do not appear to be interested in either this fact or its many other merits.
But the land use charge is here to stay. Rather than embark on a regime of deliberate misinformation as alleged, relevant stakeholders should be more concerned about the fact that it is a potent instrument for development. To that extent, the concern must be how to ensure that grey areas are sorted out in such a way that it will not create undue hardship on any property owner. The other important task is to ensure that when collected, the tax is properly accounted for. That should enough for all well meaning individual or group.
