Taxing the victims

Compassion may hardly be a virtue of income tax authorities, but it is still flabbergasting to know that whatever...

Compassion may hardly be a virtue of income tax authorities, but it is still flabbergasting to know that whatever compensation government pays to the victims of disasters as token relief is taxed by the taxmen. The income tax authorities ensure that the families of deceased victims pay tax at regular rates on this 8216;income8217;, if tax has not already been deducted at source. Only a rare soulless bureaucrat would be brazen enough to declare compassionate relief for tragedy victims as their income. The one who died had certainly no intention of making a profit out of his death.

The issue was debated in Rajya Sabha following the Mumbai train blasts as several MPs asked Finance Minister P Chidambaram for tax exemption on all monetary compensation announced to victims by the state government and the railway ministry. While Chidambaram has given an assurance to favourably consider the demand, I would like a permanent provision to ensure any compensation by government to disaster victims is fully exempt from taxes. Any compensation announced by the government following a disaster is meant to be a healing touch to the grieving families as also to offset part of the loss suffered by them. How can tax authorities stake a claim even on this compassionate relief, anyways a meager amount in the face of incalculable loss? And what right does the government have to take back a significant portion of relief given by itself to the victims of a disaster that most likely suffered their tragedies because of government8217;s own apathy or weaknesses, as is invariably seen in the shoddiness of our relief operations? There is always a government department or official to blame for most manmade disasters, be it train and road accidents, fires or building collapses.

No profit only loss

Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley had interesting points to make in Parliament on the Office of Profit issue, but I feel the core theme was still untouched. I am perhaps the only MP who has been raking the issue of OoP for last four years. There is a misleading perception that MPs occupying offices of profit are indeed making a huge profit. In reality though, barring a few cases, no MP does indeed benefit from any facility or perk from occupying any such 8216;office of profit.8217; Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee heads Shanti Niketan Trust and while the provisions entitle him to services of a car, he uses his own private car for all traveling for the Trust. Yet he is subjected to relentless public scrutiny. The situation is similar in most other cases and if BJP has the obstinacy to still pick on names, they should never forget that one of their own senior MPs had a cabinet level rank as head of a government sports body. A game can never have two sets of rules. The BJP opposes the amendment and accuses Congress of trying to save the government at the center while it goes ahead and passes exactly the same amendment in an obvious attempt to save its own governments in Jharkhand and Karnataka.

Meanwhile the question I have asked all along: why can8217;t an MP hold any other position while there are no prohibitions about bureaucrats holding any number of positions. The number of MPs facing controversies or police cases is no more than 10 per cent, while a whopping majority of them are educated, law-abiding and distinguished citizens of society. On the other hand, one could count up thousands of officers who are facing probes, enquiries and suspensions and yet they continue to hold high positions and quite interestingly, nobody questions their right or morality in doing so.

The writer is a Congress MP in Rajya Sabha