FBR test shows most Karachi tax officers miss benchmark

The Federal Board of Revenue has released the results of an open-book examination of its inland revenue officers in Karachi, and they show that very few of those tested can issue a tax order to the board's benchmark without supervision.

The test was held on the instructions of the FBR chairman and covered officers in Grades 17 to 19, according to a training assessment report taken up by The Express Tribune. Officers were asked to find errors in draft sales tax and income tax orders and to explain the legal grounds for each error they identified.

Of 150 sales tax officers who sat the paper, none reached the 60% mark. Four of the 143 income tax officers who sat it scored 60% or above. Average scores were 26.4% in sales tax and 33.3% in income tax. Forty-seven sales tax officers and 16 income tax officers scored below 20%.

Only 15 of the 150 sales tax officers met the standard for issuing an order under their own signature, the report said. In income tax the figure was 14 of 143. Of 139 officers who took the combined paper for both taxes, four met the standard for issuing a correct order in both.

The report found the checking layer above them thin as well. Twenty-one sales tax officers could review the legal aspects of a case prepared by another officer, and 28 income tax officers could review a colleague's draft order. Eight could do so in both taxes.

Among commissioners and additional commissioners, four of 56 met the review standard in sales tax and six of 53 in income tax. Deputy commissioners performed better than officers at other levels, and most of those able to adjudicate or review orders were at that rank, largely in the Large Taxpayers Office.

A higher grade did not guarantee stronger competence, the report found. Officers often spotted errors but could not explain the law behind them, and 31% of sales tax answers identified mistakes that did not exist, as did 24% of income tax answers.

Fourteen officers were judged unfit to handle cases in either category without retraining, and 31 were placed at desk level or below in both.

The report recommended training in adjudication, decision-making, evidence assessment and drafting orders. It proposed assigning work by demonstrated competence rather than by designation, and strengthening the system for reviewing orders before they are issued. It cautioned that the findings rested on three cases per category and should be read as an initial indicator of officers' capabilities rather than a full assessment.