LSK’s Challenges Taxes Under Finance Act 2023
In an urgent certificate filing, the society, represented by lawyer Noel Ngoloma Okwach, contends that the mandatory affordable housing levy poses a threat to the social-economic interests of Kenyans.
The court documents state that they are seeking orders to prohibit the government from implementing and enforcing Section 10 (2) (3) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by Section 7 of the Finance Act 2023.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) argues that the gazetting and enforcement of the Finance Act 2023, which introduces the mandatory affordable housing levy, jeopardize the social-economic interests of Kenyans, conflicting with the principle of social justice.
The LSK urges the court to protect the people’s right to life, as their livelihoods are endangered by the impugned Sections 7, 33 (a), and 84 of the Finance Act.
LSK’s Challenges Taxes Under Finance Act 2023
Law Society of Kenya.
“There exists no rationale whatsoever as to why the government through the National Assembly would force its citizens to contribute to a mandatory scheme in a country where a majority of its citizens are already grappling with harsh economic times due to the existence of multiple layers of taxes,” the sentiments of the society
LSK’s Challenges Taxes Under Finance Act 2023
Summary
The society strongly opposes the government’s proposed mandatory scheme due to its lack of rationale and potential violation of constitutional safeguards.
Here are some brief OF LSK.
They emphasize the need for a fair and thoughtful approach, especially when many citizens are already grappling with economic challenges.
By enforcing mandatory contributions, the government could arbitrarily take away citizens’ financial resources, contradicting their constitutional protection of economic rights.
LSK argues that the heavy burden to be shouldered by the employers and employees, the enactment of the law will further lower the rate of employment in a country which is already grappling with low rates of employment which is against the principle of social justice as stipulated in the Constitution.
The society further claims the process of enactment of the impugned legislation was fraught with blatant procedural and substantive illegalities.
The respondents intentionally made a mockery of the process of public participation which led to the enactment of an unfair, unsustainable and illicit legislation.
