Reps seek AGF’s advice on N123bn TETFund deductions

File: House of Representatives

The House of Representatives has waded into a dispute between the Nigeria Revenue Service and the Tertiary Education Trust Fund over N123.48bn deducted as cost of collection from Education Tax revenues between 2012 and 2024.

Consequently, the House Public Accounts Committee, chaired by Bamidele Salam (Accord, Osun), has resolved to seek the legal opinion of the Attorney-General of the Federation to determine whether the four per cent deduction applied by the NRS to Education Tax collected from oil companies was lawful.

The dispute followed an audit query by the Auditor-General for the Federation, which identified discrepancies between the Education Tax collected by the revenue agency and the amount remitted to TETFund.

At a hearing of the committee on Wednesday, representatives of both agencies presented conflicting interpretations of the provisions governing the deduction, with TETFund insisting that the NRS had overcharged it, while the revenue service maintained that its deductions were consistent with the law.

TETFund’s Director of Finance and Accounts, Dr Gloria Olotu, told the committee that the four per cent cost-of-collection provision applied only to non-oil revenue and should not extend to the entire Education Tax collected from companies in both the oil and non-oil sectors.

She said the Fund’s review of the deductions, following the Auditor-General’s query, revealed that the NRS had “applied the charge to the total Education Tax collection without excluding the oil revenue component.”

According to her, “calculations based on figures supplied by the NRS, which showed the oil and non-oil components of the collections, established that excess deductions between 2012 and 2024 amounted to N123,486,953,796.24.”

Olotu said TETFund had written several letters to the revenue agency seeking a refund and resolution of the disagreement but had yet to receive a favourable response.

However, an Executive Director representing the NRS, Shettima Tamadi, rejected the demand for a refund, arguing that the deductions were backed by the provisions of the law, particularly Sections 15A and 69 of the NRS Act.

Related News

• High-Quality Products Protect Menstrual Health: Softcare Empowers Nigerian Girls to Grow with Confidence
• Reps rally support over OPay’s New York stock exchange listing
• Rep urges FG, states to intensify anti-trafficking awareness

Tamadi maintained that Section 69 defines non-oil revenue as all revenue other than proceeds derived from Petroleum Profits Tax.

On that basis, he argued that Education Tax paid by oil companies remained subject to the four per cent cost-of-collection charge because it was not Petroleum Profits Tax.

He explained that oil companies paid PPT separately and that the NRS did not deduct collection costs from those payments.

The committee, however, said the disagreement required “an authoritative legal interpretation”, particularly as the NRS’s position appeared straightforward from an ordinary reading of the provision.

Members consequently resolved to obtain the AGF’s opinion to “establish the correct interpretation and determine whether the deductions were properly made.”

TETFund informed the lawmakers that it had earlier sought the Attorney-General’s legal advice on the matter and undertook to forward the response to the committee.

The committee also decided to independently request the AGF’s opinion before taking a final position.

The hearing was subsequently adjourned pending the submission of written explanations requested from TETFund and the relevant legal advice.

The outcome could determine whether the NRS is required to refund N123.48bn to TETFund or whether the disputed deductions were lawfully made under the existing statutory framework.