Nnamdi Oragwu, Esq and Ifeanyi Ujah, Esq, in their article, An Examination of the Liability of Natural Persons/Individuals for Failure to Demand for Tax Clearance Certificate (TCC) on Foreign Exchange Transactions under Section 85 (2) and (9) of PITA, examine the provisions of section 85 of PITA, as well as relevant statutory provisions and legal principles, and concludes that penal provisions of section 85 (2) & (9) of PITA apply to government bodies or corporate entities who are mandated to demand for TCC, and not to natural persons/individuals. There has been a renewed attempt by the Inland Revenue Services of the States and the Federal Capital Territory (revenue authorities) to maximize revenue from taxation to finance the increasing government expenditures in Nigeria. To achieve this, the revenue authorities have deployed both civil and criminal proceedings under the enabling laws. One of such enabling laws is the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA) 1993 (as amended), which in section 85 created the requirements of tax clearance certificate (TCC) and mandated specific persons under the section to demand for TCC when dealing with the public during applications or transactions specified therein.

Ifeanyi Ujah, in his article, Powers of Revenue Authorities to Call for Returns and Demand for Information under Sections 46 and 47 of the Personal Income Tax Act 1993, examines the extent and limitations on the powers of Revenue authorities to call for Returns and Demand for Information under the PITA. Revenue authorities are clothed with the powers to enforce the provisions of PITA and ensure optimum collection of all taxes due to the government under the relevant tax laws. To actualize the above statutory mandate, the revenue authorities are further conferred with the powers under sections 46 and 47 of the Personal Income Tax Act 1993 (as amended) (PITA) to give notice requiring a person to deliver any return or information specified in the notice. Recently, companies have been issued with notices from revenue authority of some states, requiring them to deliver the Nationwide Payroll of their employees, with their appointment letters for the purpose of determining their compliance with the tax remittance obligations on the employees. This raises concerns over the extent of the powers of revenue authorities to call for returns or demand for information under PITA, vis-à-vis the scope of duties owed by companies/recipients of such notices to the revenue authorities. Ujah examines these powers within the purview of the provisions of PITA. He posits that the powers are not unlimited, rather they are circumscribed by the principle of residency which determines the respective tax enforcement jurisdictions of the revenue authorities to collect the income taxes on the taxpayers under PITA. Accordingly, no person (individual or corporate) is bound to honour any notice issued by the revenue authorities in furtherance to the enforcement of tax obligations under PITA, where the notice purports to call for return or demand for the information of taxpayers who are not resident within the territory or state of the relevant revenue authority.