Latest news with #977
Business Recorder
08-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
ATIR's landmark order: Senior taxmen face FBR law director's action
ISLAMABAD: The Director Law of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Wednesday initiated extreme action against senior tax officials based on a landmark order issued by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) Islamabad. The order highlighted the poor quality of assessments, which not only erodes taxpayer confidence but also negatively impacts the FBR's performance. In this regard, Director Law and written a letter to FBR Chairman on Wednesday recommending action against involved senior FBR officials. According to tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt, the FBR had previously issued a circular stating that having five assessments reversed in appeal would be considered misconduct. However, the FBR failed to implement this crucial directive except one case where a senior officer was sent to DOT IR for passing accounting and tax laws again. The Director Law has now directed that a report be obtained from the concerned Chief Commissioner. If necessary, instructions will be issued to field formations to prevent such instances from recurring. This development aims to address the issue of frivolous poor assessments and improve the overall performance of the FBR: Waheed added. The FBR directive stated that during the hearing of the appeal in the subject titled case the on the contention of the taxpayer that all the discrepancies pertaining to revenue receipts under section 153(1)(a), contractual receipts under section 153( I )(c) and declared salary expenses were duly reconciled through documentary evidence before the assessing officer which were ignored by the assessing officer and an arbitrary tax demand was created. The Tribunal, to substantiate the appellant's claim provided a complete set of supporting documents with the instruction to verify. Despite repeated opportunities the department did not submit the reconciliation report. The learned DR, the same officer unsupported by any material evidence. Accordingly, the Impugned order is hereby annulled in its entirety, and the tits demand of Rs.43,977,137 deleted. A copy of this order shall he forwarded to the Director General (Legal), Federal Board of Revenue, for information and necessary corrective action to ensure that such instances of high-handedness and procedural lapses are not repeated in the future." 'The above state of affairs not only shatter the confidence of the taxpayers but also reflect the performance of the department in negative. It is, therefore. requested that report from the concerned Chief Commissioner may he called and then if warranted necessary instruction to avoid the recurrence of such instances may kindly be issued to the field formations. Copy of the judgment of the Tribunal is enclosed', Director Law added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
CBS News
18-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Proposed bill in Maryland would increase protections for personal data in immigration enforcement cases
Maryland lawmakers want to increase protections for personal data in immigration enforcement cases. Senate Bill 977, the Maryland Data Privacy Act would prohibit state and local agencies in Maryland from sharing personal information, granting access to databases, or allowing federal agencies to enter facilities for immigration enforcement without a valid warrant. Under the bill, anyone attempting to gain access to a government building or facility would also need a warrant and be required to disclose their name and contact information, including a phone number, email address, and physical address. Additionally, the bill would prohibit state or local law enforcement from collaborating with federal agencies to share information for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. Trump administration immigration crackdown The proposed legislation comes amid a push from the Trump administration to crack down on illegal immigration, which began in January with an executive order deploying 1,500 troops to the southern border - in addition to the 2,500 who were already stationed there under federal orders. Part of that crackdown has included lifting restrictions on where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials can operate. Shortly after President Trump's inauguration, his administration ended a policy that prohibits ICE arrests at or near schools, places of worship, and other sensitive locations. The executive action has sparked fear and concern among some schools and parents across the nation. Under current law, ICE agents are permitted to enter public areas without permission, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) told CBS News. ICE agents cannot enter private areas such as a home, or an employee-only space without permission or a judicial warrant, according to the NILC. In another executive order, Mr. Trump attempted to end birthright citizenship by ordering federal agencies to stop issuing passports and citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not legal citizens. More than 20 states sued Mr. Trump over allegations that the order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants citizenship to individuals born on American soil. On Feb. 13, Mr. Trump's executive order was blocked by a federal judge for the fourth time. States challenge warning from the Justice Department In January, the U.S. Justice Department warned that state or local officials who attempt to impede the administration's immigration enforcement efforts could face criminal charges. "The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch's immigration enforcement initiatives. Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests," Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said in a memo. But the warning was met with pushback from state leaders, who said that the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal laws. "While the federal government may use its resources for federal immigration enforcement, the court ruled in Printz v. United States that the federal government cannot "impress into its service—and at no cost to itself—the police officers of the 50 States," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said in a joint statement with 11 other attorneys general. Immigration advocates push for more protections. Advocates of the Maryland Data Privacy Act include CASA, a local immigration advocacy organization. Earlier this month, CASA held a rally, urging legislators to pass Senate Bill 977, along with the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would require Maryland Attorney General Brown to develop guidelines for immigration enforcement at certain locations. That bill would define sensitive locations as schools and colleges, medical and mental health care facilities, places of worship, service centers and shelters, and childcare centers or other locations where children gather. Locations, where funerals, weddings, and other religious or civil ceremonies are held, would also be considered sensitive locations under the bill.
