The Chartered Institute of Directors Nigeria (CIoD) has called on the Federal Government to reconsider its policy that imposed a 70 per cent windfall tax on profits generated from foreign exchange (forex) transactions by banks from 2023 to 2025.
Its Director-General/CEO Bamidele Alimi, Alimi said, in a statement said while the Institute recognises the need to rejig the economy on record time and the importance of this tax policy in fostering economic stability, it believes “the windfall tax is ill-timed, excessively high, and not fit for purpose given current economic realities.
“While the intention behind the bank windfall tax policy may be to generate additional revenue for the government, the potential negative implications for the banking sector and the broader economy are significant.
“We urge the government to reconsider the policy, to find a balance that ensures both revenue generation and the continued growth and stability of the banking sector”.
He pointed out that the policy is against the overriding philosophy of Nigeria’s Tax Policy, which is grounded in the principles of equity, efficiency, and simplicity, aiming to create a fair and transparent system that supports economic growth and development.
According to him, the Nigerian Tax Policy is geared towards creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive, promoting investment, and fostering economic diversification.
He, however, stated that while this Bank Windfall Tax may have been implemented successfully in some advanced countries, it is not enough reason for a wholesome application in Nigeria at the moment, because “it negates the overriding philosophy of Nigeria’s Tax Policy”.
Alimi pointed out, for instance, that having to remit windfall tax for the 2023 financial year when audited reports have been submitted and dividends allocated to shareholders is ill-timed.
According to him, the financial year of banks ends in December 2023, and expectedly, banks are to submit their Audited Reports to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and other stakeholders by 31st of March 2024 and publish not later than 21 days after submission.
“This implies that all the banks must have done this to avoid sanctions and dividends allocated to shareholders. To have them remit the 2023 windfall tax on foreign exchange transactions, after all these activities, is nothing but retroactive,” the CIoD boss said.
He also said banks are currently engaged in recapitalisation to meet the CBN’s minimum capital requirements, as such the imposition of such a high tax could divert essential funds away from these efforts, hampering banks’ ability to strengthen their capital bases.
“This is particularly concerning given the strict definitions of paid-up share capital, which leaves banks with limited options for raising necessary funds. A high windfall tax could lead to a decline in share prices, further complicating their financial stability,” Alimi said.
Another significant concern with the high windfall tax, he also said, is its potential to reduce the lending capacity of banks, as financial institutions play an important role in providing loans to individuals and businesses, driving economic growth and development.
“An excessive tax burden on banks could lead to a reduction in available capital for lending, thereby slowing down economic activities,” Alimi emphasized, noting that this could have a ripple effect on various sectors of the economy, ultimately stalling growth and development.
The Institute also expressed concern that high windfall tax has the potential to inhibit the financial inclusion drive, pointing out that banks, like any business, may pass on the additional costs incurred from the windfall tax to their customers.
It insisted that “This could result in higher fees for banking services, such as loan processing, account maintenance, and transactions. Increased banking costs may disproportionately affect Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and individual customers, potentially leading to financial exclusion for some segments of the population.”
Moreover, the introduction of a high windfall tax, Alimi said, may negatively affect Nigeria’s appeal to foreign investors in the banking sector and make them competitively disadvantaged. This could lead to reduced Foreign Direct Investment, (FDI), limiting the sector’s growth potential and access to international expertise.
He said consequently, this may lead to an uneven playing field within the financial services industry, and this could disadvantage banks compared to other financial institutions not subject to the tax, potentially leading to market distortions and unfair competition.
Finally, the high windfall tax could also negatively impact shareholder returns. As the Institute pointed out, “Shareholders expect dividends and returns on their investments, which are largely dependent on the profitability of banks.
“A significant portion of the profits being diverted to taxes could lead to reduced dividends and lower returns on investments. This might discourage investment in the banking sector, leading to reduced capital inflows.”
As the bastion of corporate governance in Nigeria, CIoD Nigeria said it is worried and therefore, noted that these drawbacks could have adverse effect on the economy.
It, therefore, recommended that government should, among others, reduce the windfall tax rate gradually over the years to give banks time to adjust; introduce thresholds for tax applicability; offer incentives for investment in innovation, by providing tax credits or exemptions for banks that invest in innovation, technology, and financial inclusion initiatives.
It also wants government to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment before finalising the tax policy implementation to understand its potential effects on the banking sector and the broader economy.
The Institute also wants government to encourage consultation with key stakeholders, including banks, industry associations, and economic experts, to design a more balanced tax policy; promote alternative revenue sources to reduce reliance on windfall taxes, such as improving tax collection efficiency in other sectors.
CIoD Nigeria also wants government to implement varied percentages for sustainable banking practices; monitor and review the policy regularly to ensure it remains fair and effective over time.
There is a raging debate over the introduction of the windfall tax which will see banks and other financial institutions, individuals alike who receive substantial, unexpected profits from unusual sources being taxed. In this report, Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf and Nduka Chiejina examine the pros and cons
Companies are expected to pay a windfall tax henceforth when they come into unexpected big money, in a manner of speaking!
According to the new policy regime regarding the implementation of a windfall tax in Nigeria, levies would be imposed on companies or individuals who receive substantial, unexpected profits due to circumstances beyond their usual control or investment.
Still wondering what the windfall tax thing is all about? A short anecdote would suffice:
Over three decades ago, Samson and Dauda were both playmates in their neck of the woods in the uptown district of Ajegunle, in Lagos, who ran errands for their parents after school hours. While Samson sold roasted groundnuts, Dauda hawked salt tied in palm-size nylon bags.
One fateful day after school their parents bid them to go hawk their wares and off they went to their usual rendezvous: a football field in another uptown district of Ajegunle, precisely in Amukoko. Rather than sell the groundnuts as was expected, Samson began to eat them. One after the other accomplices like Dauda along with other teenagers joined in what later became a groundnuts soiree.
Later while on their way home, Dauda the eldest of the two gave Samson a coin to go and play the jackpot, which was still a common sight back in the days. After throwing the coin into the machine and pulling it once, he literally hit a jackpot, as tonnes of coins in multiples of hundreds flooded the tray. Samson and Dauda leaped up in joyous ecstasy seeing that they had made more money than they could ever make in their daily sales. Each went home happily after deducting the proceeds of the groundnuts and still had enough to get whatever caught their fancy in weeks to come.
If the duo of Samson and Dauda hit another jackpot today they are expected to pay some taxes out of their winnings as required by the new policy regime in the form of a windfall tax because in the eyes of the law it is an unexpected gain as the case may be.
Justification for windfall tax
While offering plausible explanations on the raging debate over the windfall tax, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr. Wale Edun said that the introduction of the controversial windfall tax in the banking industry was aimed at redistributing unearned income.
He said the levy was not peculiar to Nigeria alone adding that it’s “done everywhere else in the world where you have, especially the energy sector as well as banking.”
The minister gave the clarification when he recently appeared on Moneyline programme, a television magazine programme monitored on African Independent Television (AIT).
He said, “Where you have unearned income, where you have a section of the society or an industry or a set of companies that earn money through no dint of hard work of their own.
“The society deserves a chance to share some of that and it’s just a redistribution of that. So I think that takes care of the issue of the windfall levy.”
In the view of experts, a windfall tax is a tax levied by governments against certain industries when economic conditions allow those industries to experience significantly above-average profits. Windfall taxes are primarily levied on companies in the targeted industry that have benefited the most from the economic windfall, most often commodity-based businesses.
Windfall taxes are specialised levies imposed on entities that experience sudden and substantial financial gains, often referred to as “windfalls.” These unexpected profits can result from various factors, such as significant changes in market conditions, the discovery of natural resources, or shifts in government policy.
The primary objective of windfall taxes is to appropriate a portion of these extraordinary profits, which are perceived to exceed normal returns, for the public good. Governments assert that these profits are not solely due to the taxed entity’s efforts but also due to external factors, justifying the redistribution of such gains to benefit society as a whole.
The purpose is to redistribute excess profits in one area to raise funds for the greater social good; however, this can be a contentious ideal.
Some individual taxes—such as inheritance tax or taxes on lottery or game-show winnings—can also be construed as a windfall tax.
Banks as guinea pigs for windfall tax
Indications are that the banks would be used as a test case for the implementation of the windfall tax by the federal government. The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS’s) recent Circular dated 24 June 2024 and titled “Tax Treatment of Foreign Exchange Transactions” indicates that banks would have experienced increased scrutiny, as the latter must now contend with new compliance requirements and the potential for disputes with tax authorities.
The Circular actually indicates an interest of the FIRS in receiving returns that tracks how unrealised exchange differences are being tracked and treated for deferred tax purposes. For the trained tax eye, it is not a coincidence that the Circular comes just before this proposal.
According to financial pundits, the legislation on the windfall tax must therefore be read in parallel with the intention of that Circular.
For banks, it is no longer business as usual. The treatment of the windfall tax in financial year 2023 is just the early signs of what is to come.
There may be an increased tax accounting burden on banks to justify the treatment of unrealised exchange gains they have exempted in the past, why they have never been realised, and whether they should not be realised in financial year 2023 when the windfall tax kicks in.
Banks may also need to invest in technology to identify and report these forex transactions, and work with tax and treasury experts that can help them navigate the impact of this big-bang policy change, since they have already paid dividends to shareholders and will not be able to claw any of that back to meet this new obligation.
Raging debate
Despite their potential to generate significant government revenue, windfall taxes are often a subject of debate. Advocates argue that they promote equitable wealth distribution and can finance critical public services or infrastructure projects. Opponents argue that windfall taxes can deter investment by creating uncertainty and diminishing incentives for companies to undertake risk.
Oil and gas companies are common targets of windfall taxes. The massive net income increase for oil and natural gas producers—the International Energy Agency estimated they would double from 2021 to 2022, hitting an unprecedented $2 trillion—was the trigger for the discussion and recent imposition of windfall taxes.
As with all tax initiatives instituted by governments, there is always a divide between those who are for and those who are against the tax. The benefits of a windfall tax include proceeds being directly used by governments to bolster funding for social programs. Those against windfall taxes claim that they reduce companies’ initiatives to seek out profits. They also believe that profits should be reinvested by companies to promote innovation that will, in turn, benefit society as a whole.
Then there is the question of whether windfall taxes actually raise the amounts that are predicted.
According to Deloitte, the global upstream industry is projected to maintain its 2023 hydrocarbon investment level with a projected increase of 11% year over year.
Global debate over windfall tax
For example, on September 30, 2022, the Council of the European Union agreed to impose a “temporary solidarity contribution” on businesses in the crude petroleum, natural gas, coal, and refinery sectors on profits that are “above a 20% increase of the average yearly taxable profits since 2018.” This is on top of whatever taxes they already owe in their countries. In each member state, proceeds help households and companies and ease the effects of high electricity prices.
In October 2022, President Joe Biden threatened to seek a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies, which have reported very high profits and continue to charge high prices. He told them to use their “outrageous” bonanza—the effect of the Ukraine war—to expand oil supplies or reduce consumer prices.
In February 2023, the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act was introduced. The legislation proposes a quarterly tax on large oil companies equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel and the pre-pandemic average price per barrel between 2015 and 2019. The tax will apply to companies that produce or import at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day. Smaller companies, accounting for about 70% of domestic production, will be exempt from this tax.
As of July 2024, the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act was still being discussed.
In a more current example, Bloomberg reports that the windfall tax in Italy had “(as of September [2022]) yielded only about one-fifth the income the government had hoped for.” On the other hand, the taxes do yield revenue that would not otherwise be available to offset the societal costs of high prices.
Critics point to other possible negative consequences. While windfall profits are taxed to encourage the taxed entities to lower their prices for the benefit of consumers, the tax could end up reducing investment because the new tax could make the after-tax profit not worth the effort. This happened with the 1980 tax, according to the Congressional Research Service report.
It notes that, from “1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%.” The tax was repealed in 1988.
More divergent views against windfall tax
There have been welter of criticisms over the windfall tax, with those opposed to the idea marshaling counter arguments to support their position.
One of those opposed to it is the Bank Directors Association of Nigeria (BDAN).
BDAN in a statement signed by its chairman, Mr. Mustafa Chike-Obi, said such a high levy has the potential to stifle growth and innovation within the banking sector, ultimately affecting the quality of services it provides to customers and the broader economy.
“The Bank Directors Association of Nigeria (LTD/GTE) wishes to formally address the recent imposition of a 70 per cent levy on the profits realised from foreign exchange transactions by banks for the financial years 2023 to 2025.
“We acknowledge and respect the intentions of the government in implementing this decision, however, we feel it is essential to express our concerns regarding the magnitude of the levy, its timing and the ambiguities surrounding its implementation,” he said.
BDAN explained that while the imposition of the windfall tax appears to be a response to the current economic climate, it suggested that a 70 per cent tax rate is ill-timed, particularly considering the ongoing bank recapitalisation efforts.
“Moreover, we believe that it is vital for all stakeholders in the banking sector to have been consulted prior to the enactment of such significant changes in the Finance Act 2023. Open dialogue and negotiation are essential to ensure that policies are both equitable and effective,” he said.
BDAN noted that a primary concern lies in the ambiguities of the language in the amendment which leave critical questions unanswered.
According to the association, one of question was, whether the windfall tax will be implemented as a total tax charge on banks, incorporating other taxes already levied such as company income tax, tertiary education tax, National Information Development Levy (NITDL), while also requesting clarification on what constitutes “FX transactions” to be taxed and the treatment of banks that may incur losses rather than gains during this period.
Also giving insights on the proposed windfall tax, Agusto & Co., described it as a short term fix, long term risk.
In its report entitled, ‘Nigeria’s Retroactive Windfall Tax: A Short-Term Fix, Long-Term Risk’, the rating agency observed that, “Heightening debt sustainability concerns amid perennial revenue shortfalls have compelled the administration of President Bola Tinubu to pass controversial legislation: a retroactive, 70% windfall tax on foreign exchange revaluation gains of banks. This punitive levy targets the hefty profits (some of which grew three-fold) accrued by banks since the liberalisation of the naira in June 2023 and the subsequent sharp depreciation of 51%.
“The tax, retroactively applied to the 2023 financial year, threatens fines for non-compliant banks. This move underscores the government’s desperate bid to shore up its finances amid an increasingly precarious economic landscape. We estimate that banks earned circa ₦2.5 trillion from foreign currency-related income in 2023, positioning the expected revenue from the proposed tax at ₦1.75 trillion.”
Agusto & Co., further noted that, “Nonetheless, this aggressive fiscal measure has ignited a firestorm of debate within the banking and investment communities, with far-reaching implications for the broader economy. The government seeks to augment its depleted coffers, particularly to fund the supplementary budget of ₦6.2 trillion ($3.8 billion), with the newly adjusted minimum wage and consequential adjustment estimated to account for over half of that sum. The windfall tax is seen as a quick fix to address this fiscal challenge.
“However, the retroactive imposition of such a steep levy has triggered intense backlash, with critics arguing that it not only undermines the principle of fair taxation but also creates a hostile business environment by eroding investor confidence and legal certainty.
“Retroactive taxation is a significant deterrent to investment as it creates a climate of uncertainty, making it difficult for businesses to accurately forecast their tax liabilities. Such unpredictability can erode investor confidence and discourage future investments. Why banks have been singled out is still unclear, as any business that holds monetary assets in foreign currency is likely to have benefitted significantly from the weaker naira, albeit not as much as banks.
“Many now believe that the banking industry could merely be an initial target of this policy and there is a real risk that it could be extended to other industries in the future, further exacerbating investor anxiety. Despite the potential for protracted legal and constitutional challenges, we believe prolonged tussle is unlikely given the lack of a united front by the banking industry, which limits its ability to mount a robust defense against the proposed tax.”
Paradoxically, it said, “targeting the banking sector, a critical economic intermediary, seems counterintuitive to stimulating growth. The proposed 70% windfall tax is likely to have a credit-negative impact on Nigerian banks, substantially eroding profits. Institutions with capital adequacy close to regulatory thresholds will be particularly vulnerable.
“To offset the tax burden, banks may tighten lending standards, resulting in higher borrowing costs for individuals and businesses. This could ultimately stifle economic activity and hinder growth prospects. The timing could also prove to be counter-productive. With banks currently grappling with a significant recapitalisation exercise mandated by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the proposed windfall tax is an unwelcome distraction that could further strain the industry’s ability to raise the necessary capital, particularly from foreign investors. Moreover, the tax could negatively influence bank share prices in the short term, compounding the challenges faced by the industry.
“Nigeria’s proposed windfall tax aligns it with a growing trend among European nations such as Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia. These countries have imposed similar levies on banks to recoup perceived excessive profits generated by rising interest rates and inflation. European banks have vehemently opposed these measures, arguing that they will curtail lending capabilities and ultimately hinder economic growth. In Italy, banks had the option to avoid the tax entirely by allocating at least 2.5 times the original tax amount to their core capital reserves.
“However, we believe that it is highly improbable that the Nigerian government will introduce a similar “escape clause” in its proposed windfall tax given that the main objective of the 70% levy is to generate additional revenue to tackle the country’s fiscal challenges. On assumption of office, the government’s tax reform rhetoric emphasised broadening the tax base and reducing the overall tax burden to foster a business-friendly climate essential for sustained economic growth. Whether the windfall tax aligns with this stated objective is now the subject of intense scrutiny.”
In the view of PwC, “The introduction of the windfall tax marks a departure from the status quo for Nigerian banks. It signals a new era of fiscal policy that requires careful navigation by both the banking sector and the government. While the tax aims to ensure that banks contribute their fair share to the national coffers, it must be implemented in a manner that upholds legal principles and maintains investor confidence. As Nigeria treads into this uncharted territory, the outcomes of this policy will have significant implications for the country’s financial system’s stability and economic growth.
“Finally, if the final legislation taxes only realised profits in 2023, there would only be a marginal revenue that would be generated, and this would not fulfil the revenue objectives of the government. For most banks, the gains were only realised in 2024 when the CBN mandated banks in February 2024 to adjust their net open position.”
Otedola’s strident calls for implementation of windfall tax
Billionaire businessman, Femi Otedola, who has reportedly given his imprimatur of support to the windfall tax said it would go a long in helping to redistribute wealth and free up resources to develop infrastructure across the country.
In a statement titled, ‘Windfall Tax: Getting the Economy to Work for All’, Otedola expressed his strong support for the implementation of a windfall tax in Nigeria, noting that his endorsement aligns with the ongoing efforts to reform the Nigerian banking sector, aimed at enhancing economic stability and integrity within our financial institutions.
“Windfall taxes are levies on companies or individuals who receive substantial, unexpected profits due to circumstances beyond their usual control or investment. Taxing these extraordinary gains ensures a fairer distribution of wealth, allowing those who benefit disproportionately to contribute more significantly to the broader societal good,” he stressed.
While making a case for the implementation of the tax variant, the business mogul said, “The revenue generated from windfall taxes can be channeled into essential public services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, benefiting all citizens and helping to reduce social inequalities.
“The recent announcement of a windfall tax on the extraordinary profits earned by Nigerian banks is a significant first step towards achieving these goals. The consolidation of various foreign exchange rate systems into a single investors and exporters (I&E) window led to the depreciation of the Naira and substantial increases in the value of bank assets denominated in United States Dollars.”
According to him, “This extraordinary gain should be redistributed to fund critical infrastructure development, education, healthcare access, and public welfare initiatives, addressing the intense pressure on public finances and alleviating the cost-of-living crisis many Nigerians face. Furthermore, the financial statements of manufacturing, telecoms, and SMEs indicate that many of these companies may not be able to pay corporate tax for at least the next two years, as they are currently showing negative equity. It is essential for the government to step in and provide support to bridge these gaps, ensuring revenue generation and fostering economic development.
“The importance of aligning financial priorities with Nigeria’s broader economic development goals cannot be overstated. The Federal Government’s reforms are both timely and essential for the sustainable growth of our economy. By taking decisive action to implement these changes, the Federal Government is demonstrating a commitment to ethical leadership and accountability. These reforms will empower our banking sector to play a pivotal role in driving Nigeria’s economic development, ultimately securing a prosperous future for all Nigerians. I also commend the recent recapitalization initiative in the banking sector, which sets minimum capital requirements of N500 billion for international banks and N200 billion for national banks. This move is designed to strengthen the banking sector’s capacity to support Nigeria’s broader economic development goals. It is crucial for banks to focus on operational efficiency, technological innovation, and customer service, rather than executive extravagance.”
Otedola, who was rather critical about the need to address the current malfeasance in the sector said, “Amid the progress with banking sector reforms, there is an urgent need to address entrenched issues within the Nigerian banking sector. A concerning trend has emerged where some bank chief executives prioritise personal gain over their duty to shareholders and customers. The core values of banking—trust, integrity, and service—must be upheld. I am particularly critical of the culture of flamboyance, especially the ownership and operation of private jets.
“Nigerian banks are spending an estimated $50 million annually just on maintaining private jets, with over $500 million gone into purchasing nine private jets by four banks. This level of extravagance significantly erodes public trust in our financial institutions and diverts crucial resources away from vital areas such as operational efficiency, technological innovation, and customer service.
“To regain the trust of the Nigerian public and fulfill its pivotal role in the nation’s economic development, the banking sector must realign its financial priorities. Investments should be channeled into areas that directly improve customer services and enhance technological infrastructure.”
With the new windfall tax regime still being hotly debated, opinions are that the conversations around the propriety or otherwise will linger for a while.
SIR: Progressive economies around the world have at one time or the other introduced windfall taxes. For example, in 2022, the United Kingdom introduced a windfall tax on energy companies’ profits due to soaring energy prices exacerbated by geopolitical events, including the war in Ukraine. Also in 2022, Italy imposed a windfall tax on energy companies’ profits, similar to the UK’s approach, to address the impact of high energy prices on consumers and to generate additional revenue for the government. Australia, in the same year, imposed a windfall tax on mining companies benefiting from high commodity prices, though the exact details and implementation varied. Spain, in 2022, also introduced a windfall tax on energy companies and banks to address high inflation and support low-income households.
These taxes are often introduced during periods of significant economic stress or when certain sectors experience unexpected and substantial profits. The aim is usually to mitigate the negative effects of economic volatility on the broader population and to fund public services.
A windfall tax is a tax levied on profits that are deemed to be excessively high or unexpected, often due to external factors rather than business performance. This type of tax is typically imposed on companies or sectors that have experienced a sudden surge in profits due to favourable conditions, such as a rise in commodity prices or economic changes.
The Nigerian banking sector has had windfall income fall on the laps of its operators since the unification of the exchange rate late last year by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). The manufacturing sector suffered the consequences of the gains made by the banks. Hence, the federal government’s introduction of windfall tax through amendment to the 2023 Finance Act.
The critical need for adjustment to achieve balance necessitated the windfall tax which will apply only to the N3.37trillion gained by the banks through foreign exchange revaluation in 2023 financial year and first quarter of this year.
I read Kolade Ojo, a financial and tax expert, on the windfall tax. According to him, the policy, though “perceived as a financial burden aims to redistribute unexpected gains in a way that can stabilise the economy and support social programmes, thereby fostering a more equitable financial landscape…”
He went further to say that “The perception of the windfall levy as a punitive measure overlooks the broader economic benefits it is designed to achieve. Rather than unduly penalising banks, the levy aims to redistribute extraordinary profits in a manner that supports the overall economy. By harnessing windfall gains, the government can invest in critical areas that spur economic growth, thereby creating a more favourable operating environment for all businesses, including the banking sector players.” He supported his argument using the Norway’s petroleum tax system model which involves “taxing the super profits from oil and gas exploration at a high rate, which has allowed the country to amass a substantial sovereign wealth fund.
Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, FIRS, Zacch Adedeji explained that the windfall tax was not a new tax imposed on banks, but rather taking from the already made profit. The windfall tax, he said, “are the gains that you have without any contribution from you, without any value addition, which has had an adverse effect on others. And who are these others? If you look at the report of all manufacturing entities and the last one and a half years, you will discover that a lot of them recorded huge losses coming from exchange transactions.”
The flip of these losses is recorded in banks. Anywhere in the world, the duty of government is to redistribute the wealth to sustain the progress and prosperity of the nation. So, the loss suffered by manufacturing, as a result of the forex gains recorded by the banks is what the government seeks to redistribute. And that is why we have this levy, which is done everywhere.
