The Tax Code is as bulky as the Income-Tax Act, 1961, if one were to ignore the non-operative provisions of the Act, observes D. P. Mittal in ‘Treatise on Direct Taxes Code’ ( www.taxmann.com ). The Code with 318 definitions, is clumsily drafted in an attempt to avoid the use of well-known tools of legal drafting such as provisos, explanations, non-obstante clauses and so on, he adds.
“Every word or expression used in the Act appears to find a place in the definition clause. When a word has been statutorily defined, its dictionary meaning cannot be looked at. An ordinary man of average intelligence, not versed in law, may not find it easy to understand its provisions as its every word has a statutory meaning and not a popular meaning.”
With the passage of time, the author anticipates that the Code will have to accommodate provisos and explanations, to be relevant and effective. The best way, he suggests, to amend the tax laws is to retain the basic fabric of the present Act. “If redundant provisions and exemption provisions are deleted, it would be relieved of its bulk and become easier to understand.”
Mittal rues that much litigation is not because the law is complex or its provisions are not comprehensible, but because of the procedural lapses and lack of proper administration. He cites, as an example of model administrator, Aristides the Just (530-468 BC), who managed to assess the cities of ancient Greece in such a way that they had the feeling of being fairly and justly taxed.
You can find an insightful anecdote about Aristides in www.e-classics.com. “The Athenians chose Aristides to be their treasurer, and he discovered that Themistocles (who had held this office previously) had embezzled large sums of money from the public funds. When Aristides presented the evidence, Themistocles and his party made such a show of outrage and wounded dignity at this accusation that Aristides was fired and also fined for abusing his office,” begins the narration.
But the best men of Athens saw that a great wrong had been done, and they managed by their efforts to convince the people to repeal the fine and to allow Aristides to continue in his office for the next year, it continues.
“After that experience, Aristides said nothing about corruption, and therefore the crooks praised him for being an outstanding public servant. These were his loudest supporters for another term in office as treasurer. After he was re-elected in a landslide, Aristides addressed the Athenians.”
What he then said makes for great reading: “When I did my job to the best of my ability, you fired me and fined me. When I said nothing about the theft of public money, you called me an honest man and re-elected me. I want you to know that I am more ashamed of the honour you give me today than I was of the dishonour you put on me last year. It’s a shame that you think it better to please the wicked than to preserve our city.”
As the site recounts, Aristides then proceeded to give the citizens a full account of all of the corruption of the past year as the crooks listened aghast.
Helpful reference.
