Evaluation of rating valuation appeal procedure: a comparative study of United Kingdom, Nigeria and Malaysia

Abstract

Rating valuation as an important aspect of tax administration is based on the principle of equality and fairness. Appeal procedures give taxpayers opportunities to determine and challenge the reasonableness of rating valuations. When the objection and appeal procedure is stringent, taxpayer may disregard the legal means for objection and seek for alternatives that may be detrimental to the intent and purpose of rating. Following this argument, this paper seeks to evaluate the objection and appeal procedure of rating assessment in the United Kingdom, Nigeria and Malaysia. In order to achieve this, aim an evaluation model of level of satisfaction was utilised based on the five decision rules. The result of the study shows that, there are many grounds for objection in the UK and Malaysia, whereas there is only one ground in Nigeria. ‘Informal appeal’ is the origin of objection in the UK and Malaysia but this is lacking in Nigerian rating practice. The Malaysian appeal is shouldered by the conventional Court while in Nigeria and the UK it is shouldered by the Assessment Tribunal and Special Courts; the practice in Nigeria and Malaysia has stringent conditions that may affect taxpayers’ willingness to pursue the recognised means for objection. With regards to satisfaction level, the model reveals 1, 0.8 and 0.4 for the UK, Malaysia and Nigeria respectively. The study concludes that objection procedure practice in Malaysia and Nigeria needs improvement on the aspect of requirements for valid appeals. In addition, the ground for objection in Nigeria needs to be broadened.