APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD UNDER THE NIGERIAN TAX LAW: PITFALLS IN ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE

Abstract

The politics of the doctrine of covering the field in tax matters on division of taxing powers of government in Nigeria has always been controversial in practice. The legislative powers of Nigeria are shared between the federation and components states. The truism is that the National Assembly exclusively legislates on matters within the Exclusive legislative list while both the federal and the state exercise power on the concurrent legislative list. By this practice and politics of covering the field, the states are left with nothing as far as the constitutionally enumerated powers are concerned in tax matters. Hence, where the state’s law provides for any item in the concurrent legislative list, it may be void on the grounds of inconsistency or of covering the field generally. In resolving the issue in tax matters, recourse is hard to the intention of the words or provisions of the constitution concerning the item. This paper examined the relevant provisions of the constitution juxtaposed with some income tax statutes to find out the interpretations giving to the legislation of the state vis-a-vis the federal statutes in tax matters. The paper adopted doctrinal method of data collection using analytical approach in examining the research materials like the constitution, taxing statutes, judicial decisions, textbooks, journals articles and internet sources. The paper discovered that in most constitutional interpretations relating to the doctrine of covering the field in tax matters resort had always been placed on “borrowing†definition of word from other countries which do not have similar or resemblance in meaning. By this attitude the states are left at the mercy of the federal government. The paper recommends that broad interpretations should be given in order not restrict their meaning or matters mentioned therein to a particular provision but other provisions relating to the issue must be read together and not disjoint. This is to know when to declare a particular provision of a legislation of either state or federal void as a result of inconsistency and when to keep the legislation in abeyance or in operative. The states following the recent decisions of courts should resist any attempt to muzzle out residual powers from them hiding under the principle of covering the field.