CCJ to rule on Ramsahoye challe

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) recently heard arguments in a decades-old action which has its genesis in the 1998 termination of the services of James Ramsahoye by the now-defunct Linden Mining Enterprise (LINMINE) and Bauxite Industry Development Company Limited (BIDCO).

Ramsahoye has over the last 23 years been engaged in a number of court battles—all related in one way or the other—to his initial action.

The current challenge before the CCJ is an appeal filed by Ramsahoye (the Appellant), contesting the decision and procedure adopted by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) to assess and deduct income tax from damages he had been awarded by his former employers who had been found to have breached his contract of service.

The Trinidad-based court of last resort for Guyana, is being asked to determine issues concerning what constitutes taxable income under the Income Tax Act and the process and procedural safeguards that GRA (the Respondent) must adhere to, in ensuring a fair and transparent process which accords with the principles of natural justice.

It is the contention of Ramsahoye’s attorney— Chandrapratesh Vikash Satram—that the Revenue Authority’s move to apply taxes now, to sums awarded to his client since 2004, is a breach of the Act.

Satram in his address to the Court said that the GRA is attempting to tax pension amounts which are still to be paid to his client.

He said that while his client was being paid following the award in 2004, payments ceased in 2018 after the CCJ in another action stemming from the said set of proceedings, refused a special-leave application Ramsahoye was seeking to appeal.

At the time, he was hoping to be granted leave to appeal a decision of the

Guyana Court of Appeal, which dismissed enforcement orders from a previous judgment, that he be paid damages and a monthly pension, against LINMINE and BIDCO.

BIDCO’s assets have been transferred to the National Industrial Commercial Investments Limited, (NICIL).

Satram’s argument is that the Act has a time-bar, so that assessments cannot be done and taxed seven years after.

He argues against this background that even if it was taxable back in 2004 when an assessment would have been done at that time, the GRA cannot now—17 years after— attempt to do any assessment on sums still to be made, in hopes of applying taxes.

He submitted to the court during the two-hour hearing, that the limitation period under Section 72 of the Act is clear and to do otherwise would be unjust.

Meanwhile, counsel for GRA—Maritha Halley— made a bid at protecting the Authority’s interest but

ould eventually yield to her pponent’s position, conceding hat Section 72 of the Act is clear nd that there was no way around in the instant case.

She accepted that while the Act oes include a proviso, it does not pply in the Appellant’s appeal. he exception applies in instances

here fraud or any gross or willul neglect would have been stablished.

In the absence of those two sitations, however, a visibly deflatd Halley said, “unfortunately I

ill have to concede that Section 2 is clear and will bind the hands f the Commissioner.”

It had been Halley’s position hat “in the interest of justice,” the ourt should allow the Revenue

uthority to now raise an assessment to tax sums still to be paid to he Appellant.

Satram, however, remained resute that in light of Section 72, he Court should make a conseuential order that the Commisoner ought not to now raise any ew assessment.

Section 72 states, “Where it ppears to the Commissionereneral that any person liable to x has not been assessed or has een assessed at a less amount han that which ought to have een charged, the Commissionereneral may, within the year of ssessment (commencing with the

ear of assessment 1942) or withn seven years after the expiration hereof, assess the person at such mount or additional amount as ccording to his judgment ought

have been charged, and the prosions of this Act as to notice of ssessment, appeal, and other proeedings hereunder shall apply to hat assessment or additional ssessment and to the tax charges nder it.”

The exception then states, Provided that where any fraud or ny gross or willful neglect

as been committed by or on ehalf of any person in connecon with or in relation to tax for ny year of assessment, an assessment in relation to such year of ssessment may be made at any me.”

The Court has indicated that it ill consider the arguments and nform when it will render its ecision.

The appeal was heard by resident of the CCJ Justice

drian Saunders; along with ustices Denys Barrow, Jacob Wit, Winston Anderson and ndrew Burgess.

Ramsahoye was employed by he two state-owned corporations

INMINE and BIDCO—in the ationalized bauxite industry,

hen in 1998, after 26 years of ervice his employment was terminated.

As a result, he commenced proceedings in the High Court for breach of contract but the action was dismissed and so he appealed.

The Court of Appeal delivered a judgment allowing the appeal and awarded Ramsahoye the sum of US$174,032.49 in damages for breach of contract and monthly pension of US$2,000.72 with effect from 1st July, 1998.

Following the eventual judgment, there were a series of proceedings between Ramsahoye and his former employees— aimed at either preventing the payment of, or enforcement of, the decision, which led to difficulties in Ramsahoye receiving payments.