I refer to the letter IRB should sort out 'timing differences' .

I symphatise with the situation of KV but I afraid the Inland Revenue Board is doing what is laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1967 (ITA). The instalment payments that any taxpayer made for 2006 are advanced payment under the ITA.

When the 2006 tax return is submitted and assessed, the advanced payments will be matched against the assessed amount. If there is a shortfall, you must pay the balance. If there is a surplus, then only it becomes an 'over-payment' under the ITA.

The ITA does not allows the utilisation of advanced payments for offset against past under-payment of assessed taxes. The general rule of the ITA is 'pay first, then argue".

This is unfair but this is the same way other countries are operating. The only difference is the attitude of our IRB officers and how they simply abuse the power conferred upon them to make us sick. But is there any difference with the other government departments?

In general, other than those laws that used to suppress freedom of speech, the laws in this country are quite fine. It is the administration or the execution of them that leaves much to be desired for. To have the laws administered fairly requires at least a generation of the right mind-set coupled with a change in the public sector's recruitment policy for intake and promotions to be based on merit and performance respectively. We have to start the change and the sooner the better.