The Chairman, Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, Taiwo Oyedele, has faulted the recent publication by KPMG on new tax laws, describing claims by the firm as “invalid conclusions.”
Oyedele, in a statement on Saturday, said the committee welcomes perspectives that contribute to a shared understanding and successful implementation of the new tax laws.
According to him, KPMG raised a few points that are useful, “particularly those related to implementation risks and clerical or cross-referencing issues. However, the majority of the publication reflected a misunderstanding of the policy intent, a mischaracterisation of deliberate policy choices, and, in several instances, the repetition of opinions and preferences as facts.”
Meanwhile, KPMG had in its analysis titled “Nigeria’s New Tax Laws: Inherent Errors, Inconsistencies, Gaps and Omissions,” flagged what it described as “errors, inconsistencies, gaps and omissions” in Nigeria’s tax laws whose implementation started this month.
Reacting to a significant proportion of the issues described as “errors,” “gaps,” or “omissions” by KPMG, Oyedele said they are either “the firm’s own errors and invalid conclusions, issues not properly understood by the firm, missed context on broader reforms objectives, areas where KPMG prefer different outcomes than the choices deliberately made in the new tax laws, and obvious clerical and editorial matters already identified internally.”
The presidential committee acknowledged that disagreeing with a policy direction is legitimate, stating however that disagreements should not be framed as errors or gaps.
“KPMG would have been more effective if the firm adopted a similar approach like other professional firms who engaged directly providing the opportunity for clarifications and mutual-learning.
“It is equally important to distinguish between policy choices designed to achieve the reform objectives and proposals that merely represent a firm’s preference.”
Providing clarity on policy choices and the reforms, the Oyedele-led committee explained that contrary to the presumption that the new tax provisions on chargeable gains would trigger a sell-off on the stock market, the fact is that the applicable tax rate on share gains is not a flat 30%. “The tax framework is structured from 0% to a maximum of 30%, which is set to reduce to 25%. Furthermore, a significant majority of investors (99%) are entitled to unconditional exemption, with others qualifying subject to reinvestment.
“The market’s performance, which is at an all-time high with increased investment flow, demonstrates investors understanding that the tax changes will enhance the fundamentals of firms both in terms of profitability and cash flows. The sell-off narrative is unsubstantiated as any disposals in December 2025 would have benefited from the re-investment exemption or enhanced deductions under the new law.”
On commencement date and transition, Oyedele said the suggestion to set the commencement date as the start of an accounting period (e.g., 1 January 2026) takes a narrow view of the complex transition issues.
“A wholesale reform affects myriad issues beyond the accounting period, spanning multiple periods, different bases of assessment (preceding year, actual year), as well as issues related to audit, deductions, credits, and penalties. Limiting the commencement to a single date for accounting periods would fail to address the intricacies of continuous transactions and other transition matters. KPMG’s proposal is therefore not a “gold standard” to be applied to all new laws as suggested,” the statement added.
Continuing, Oyedele clarified that the new provision to tax indirect transfer of shares is a policy choice aligned with global best practices and BEPS initiatives.
“Its objective is to block a long-exploited tax loophole by multinationals and other investors, not to affect competitiveness. This is a common provision in international tax, and the assertion that it may affect the country’s economic stability is disingenuous.”
On VAT exemption on insurance premium, the statement described KPMG’s point regarding a specific VAT exemption on insurance premium as technically unnecessary, explaining that an insurance premium is not a “taxable supply” defined under the Nigeria Tax Act.
“Insurance relates to risk transfer, not the supply of goods or services subject to VAT. As this has always been the administrative and legal position, a specific amendment for exemption is academic. If it is not broken, don’t fix it.”
Reacting to some i𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 which he tagged as r𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 KPMG’s m𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, Oyedele added that the concern about the inclusion of “community” in the definition of a ‘person’ but its omission from the charging section does not constitute a gap or ambiguity. In statutory interpretation, definitions provided in the law apply wherever the defined term appears, unless the context requires otherwise.
“Hence, ‘person’ and ‘taxable person’ are used in the charging section, and both definitions include ‘community.’ This approach is consistent with modern legislative drafting principles, which use comprehensive definitions to streamline operative provisions and avoid redundancy. This is similar to the inclusion of partnerships and executors in the definition but not under the charging section. The use of the word “includes” further signifies that the list of taxable persons is not exhaustive.
“Joint Revenue Board (JRB) Composition
The composition and mandate of the Joint Revenue Board (JRB) are intentional. Its policy advisory role is specifically to provide a subnational tax and revenue perspective that complements the fiscal policy mandate of the Ministry of Finance. Its membership is appropriately limited to revenue-focused agencies, which is why it is called the Joint Revenue Board. This is a similar composition under which the former JTB operated effectively, and its functions remain consistent with the need for inter-agency coordination.
Leave a Comment