Proposed Bankruptcy Law sparks debate over giving priority to tax authorities over creditors
COLOMBO – A proposal to give Sri Lanka’s Inland Revenue Department (IRD) priority over other creditors in recovering unpaid taxes under a new bankruptcy and corporate restructuring law has come under scrutiny at Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance, with economists and legal experts questioning its impact on business recovery efforts.
The debate emerged during deliberations on the draft insolvency framework, which seeks to modernize Sri Lanka’s bankruptcy laws and provide struggling companies with a clearer path to restructuring instead of liquidation.
Under the proposed legislation, companies undergoing restructuring would be required to settle one year’s outstanding income tax and value-added tax (VAT) obligations before payments are made to other creditors.
Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of Colombo-based think tank Advocata Institute, argued that prioritizing the state’s tax claims over private creditors undermines the principle of equal commercial risk-sharing.
“I would think that if the state has a claim on the economic interests of a business through the tax system, then it should not necessarily be prioritized, because basically the other creditors also took equal risk,” Jafferjee told the committee.
“So, they should be on equal terms in participating in any kind of reduction in their interests,” he said.
The proposed law forms part of broader economic and legal reforms aimed at improving Sri Lanka’s business climate and investor confidence following the country’s 2022 financial crisis and sovereign debt default.
Supporters of the reforms argue that a modern insolvency framework is essential to preserving viable businesses, protecting jobs and improving credit recovery rates.
However, critics warn that excessive state preference in bankruptcy proceedings could discourage lending and weaken incentives for private sector restructuring.
President’s Counsel Chanaka De Silva, a former member of Sri Lanka’s Law Commission representing the Ministry of Justice, defended the inclusion of limited tax priority, saying the provision had been introduced after extensive deliberations.
“We prioritize only a small amount of that, because at the end of the day the state is also public,” De Silva told the committee.
“That’s why one year of tax; after that they stand in the queue with the others,” he said.
Jafferjee, however, questioned whether even limited priority treatment for tax claims was economically justified when the objective of restructuring laws is to rescue distressed firms rather than push them toward collapse.
“A company is trying to restructure because it’s in trouble. They’re not voluntarily going to do it,” he said, elaborating, “What you want from this law is for firms not to fail. You prefer resuscitation to liquidation, because in liquidation all creditors will lose out much more than in resuscitation.”
He argued that the government, which frequently intervenes in the economy through public policy measures, should also share the burden during corporate restructuring rather than placing itself ahead of other stakeholders.
“In the resuscitation process, why doesn’t the tax authority also participate in that pool? Why are we even prioritizing one year? Economically it doesn’t make sense,” Jafferjee said.
–ENCL
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.