Prime Minister Mia Mottley Addresses Errors in Property Assessments by Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA)

Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley revealed that some errors were made by Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA) in their assessment of properties categorised under agricultural lots.

Mottley made this revelation during the St Philip Speaks held on Thursday at the Princes Margaret School in Six Roads, St Philip, as she addressed the concerns of Sanford resident Peter Bradshaw who claimed his house was currently frozen by the BRA pending the payment of a sum of owed land tax.

“My understanding from the Revenue Authority is that there were some issues where they literally have had mistakes with the assessments of some of the houses whose dwelling houses and rates were changed on agriculture lots,” Mottley said.

The Prime Minister confirmed that the BRA was currently reviewing this mistake in categorisation and that updated bills would be reissued by the Authority to reflect the correct rates.

Bradshaw, who built his twoacre residence on an agricultural lot in Sanford, where he raises chickens, discovered it was charged as a commercial property rather than a residential one.

In 2022-2023 his land tax was $475 with an improved value of $475 000. Last year on the same improved value of $475 000 his tax jumped to $4 512.50.

“So I went into the BRA to ask a question,” Brashsaw said in an interview with the Sunday Sun. “I felt it was a mistake to be told no that they have a new policy that covers agricultural lots of two acres or more with residences on them and they will be treated as commercial properties.

“So I started to research and I downloaded the Land Tax Act and I started to read that I found nothing in there that supports their actions. I wrote four objection letters to the revenue commissioner and in most cases I got acknowledgement, but never an actual reply,” Bradshaw explained.

Adding to the Sanford resident’s confusion his two closest neighbours, whose lots were above two acres, objected the bill after they were brought to the same level of taxation. In disputing this they both had their letters upheld and their taxes were returned to a residential rate.

In responding to Bradshaw’s claims, Mottley offered to investigate to better ascertain why there was a freeze in the correction of the categorisation of his lot. ( JRN)