By Mercy Aikoye
The House of Representatives has moved to seek the legal opinion of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) over a N123.48 billion dispute between the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) and the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) concerning deductions made from Education Tax collections.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), chaired by Rep. Bamidele Salam, resolved to seek the AGF’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the law following conflicting positions presented by both agencies during its ongoing consideration of audit queries on revenue collections and remittances.
The dispute centres on the four per cent cost-of-collection charge deducted by the NRS from Education Tax revenue collected from companies operating in the oil and non-oil sectors.
TETFund, which is seeking a refund of N123,486,953,796.24, argued that the deduction should apply only to the non-oil component of the Education Tax and not the entire revenue collected.
Presenting the Fund’s position, its Director of Finance and Accounts, Dr. Gloria Olotu, said the Auditor-General had raised concerns over discrepancies between the Education Tax collected by the NRS and the amount remitted to TETFund.
She explained that a review of the deductions, based on revenue breakdowns supplied by the NRS, showed that the agency had applied the four per cent charge to the total Education Tax collected without excluding the oil-sector component.
According to her, the excess deductions accumulated between 2012 and 2024, prompting TETFund to write several letters to the revenue agency seeking a refund, but without a resolution.
However, the NRS, represented by its Executive Director, Shettima Tamadi, rejected the demand, insisting that the deductions were consistent with the law.
Tamadi cited Sections 15A and 69 of the NRS Act, arguing that non-oil revenue covers all revenue other than proceeds derived from Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT).
He maintained that Education Tax paid by oil companies does not constitute Petroleum Profits Tax and is therefore subject to the four per cent cost-of-collection charge.
The NRS official added that oil companies pay Petroleum Profits Tax separately and that the Service does not deduct collection costs from such payments.
Although the Committee observed that the NRS’s interpretation appeared consistent with an ordinary reading of the relevant provision, lawmakers said an authoritative legal interpretation was necessary to resolve the disagreement.
TETFund informed the Committee that it had earlier sought the AGF’s legal advice and promised to submit the response for consideration.
The Committee, however, resolved to independently obtain the Attorney-General’s opinion while requesting written submissions from the two agencies to establish their respective legal positions.
The hearing was subsequently adjourned pending the submission of the requested documents and the AGF’s legal advice.
