House Wades into NRS, TETFund Dispute Over N123.48bn Education Tax Deductions

Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja

House of Representatives Public Accounts Committee has waded into a N123.48 billion dispute between Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) and Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) over deductions from Education Tax.

The committee, chaired by Hon. Bamidele Salam, took up the matter during its ongoing probe of audit queries on revenue collections and remittances.

The auditor-general had flagged discrepancies between the education tax collected by NRS, formerly the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), and what was remitted to TETFund.

At the hearing, NRS was represented by its Executive Director, Shettima Tamadi, while TETFund was represented by its Director of Finance and Accounts, Dr. Gloria Olotu. Both agencies held sharply opposing views.

Olotu told the committee that the law allowed the four per cent cost of collection only on non-oil revenue, not on the entire education tax.

She said the auditor-general first raised the issue, prompting TETFund to review the deductions. The review showed that NRS had applied the four per cent charge to total education tax collected, without excluding the oil component.

Using NRS’s own figures, which separated oil and non-oil components, TETFund calculated excess deductions between 2012 and 2024 at N123,486,953,796.24.

“The fund had written several letters to the revenue agency seeking a resolution of the matter but had yet to receive the requested refund,” Olotu said.

Tamadi disagreed, and insisted no refund was due, while adding that deductions are legal.

He relied on Sections 15A and 69 of the NRS Act, stating that Section 69 defines non-oil revenue as all revenue other than that derived from Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT).

On that basis, he said Education Tax paid by oil companies was not Petroleum Profits Tax and was, therefore, subject to the four per cent deduction.

He explained that oil companies paid PPT separately, and NRS did not deduct cost of collection from PPT payments.

In its intervention, the committee said while NRS’s interpretation looked straightforward on an ordinary reading of the law, the disagreement between two federal agencies required an authoritative legal position.

TETFund said it had already sought the opinion of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and would forward the response to the committee.

The committee resolved to independently seek the AGF’s legal opinion before taking a decision.

The hearing was adjourned pending the submission of TETFund’s written position and the AGF’s legal advice.