Grand Bassa County Senator Gbehzohngar Milton Findley has called for a serious policy debate over the Liberia Revenue Authority's (LRA) proposal to retain five percent of the revenue it collects to finance its operations, arguing that the central question should not simply be whether the Authority receives a percentage, but whether its financing model gives it the capacity to generate significantly more revenue for the Liberian government.
Findley, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Revenue, said he supports the principle of providing the LRA with a dedicated share of its collections but cautioned against treating the proposed five percent as an automatically appropriate or permanent figure.
"I support the Liberia Revenue Authority getting some collection over a fee, a percentage of what they collect," Findley said. "But that percentage must be based on certain criteria at certain points in time."
His intervention comes as the LRA seeks to implement its Corporate Strategic Plan 2025-2029, an institutional roadmap focused on strengthening domestic revenue mobilization, modernizing tax administration, expanding taxpayer services and improving the Authority's operational capacity.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The issue is how much should the government invest in the institution responsible for collecting the money that finances government itself?
Findley said the proposed allocation should be subjected to further examination by the Legislature, Ministry of Finance and Development Planning and the LRA.
"The 5% may not be enough, maybe more, or the 5% may be even less than what you need for your operations to make sure that you collect the necessary revenue for our country," he said. "Whether it's 5% or more or less, I think there's room for discussion."
The senator's position suggests that the debate should move beyond a simple argument over a percentage and instead examine what resources the LRA requires to perform its mandate effectively.
A revenue authority cannot maximize collections without investing in the systems and people that make collection possible. Taxpayer registration, audits, customs operations, digital filing, data analysis, compliance enforcement, border controls, staff training and taxpayer education all require sustained funding.
If the LRA is under-resourced, the government could potentially lose substantially more revenue through weak compliance, tax evasion, inefficient systems and limited enforcement capacity than it would save by restricting the Authority's operational budget.
That is the rationale underlying the argument for a dedicated allocation--spending a predictable portion of revenue collection on the institution responsible for collecting it could be viewed as an investment in expanding the government's overall revenue base.
But Findley's caution is equally important. A five-percent allocation should not automatically become an entitlement without determining whether the amount remains justified by the Authority's operational requirements and performance.
Could 5% make the LRA more robust?
The proposed arrangement could potentially strengthen the LRA in several important areas.
First, it could give the Authority a more predictable source of operational financing. Revenue collection is a continuous function, and an institution responsible for collecting domestic taxes and customs revenues needs resources throughout the year rather than relying entirely on annual budgetary releases.
Second, a dedicated allocation could support continued digital transformation. The LRA has already introduced improvements in its tax filing system, which Findley personally referenced during his remarks.
"I'm very pleased with the technical team. And now I can file my tax returns with the new system," he said.
Further investment in digital systems could make it easier for taxpayers to register, file returns, make payments and track their obligations. For the government, digitization can also improve access to taxpayer information and strengthen the Authority's ability to identify discrepancies and potential non-compliance.
Third, additional operational resources could strengthen auditing and enforcement.
A more robust tax administration requires trained auditors, investigators, customs officers, information-technology specialists and compliance personnel.
In that sense, the debate over the five percent is ultimately a debate over revenue productivity.
If an additional investment in the LRA enables the Authority to collect significantly more than it costs to operate, the allocation could represent a fiscally productive investment rather than simply another government expenditure.
But accountability must accompany autonomy, as the proposal also carries risks that should form part of the legislative discussion.
Providing the LRA with a percentage of collections could improve its financial independence and operational flexibility, but it could also create concerns about accountability.
This is where Findley's suggestion that the percentage should be based on "certain criteria at certain points in time" becomes particularly important.
Rather than establishing an unconditional five-percent entitlement, policymakers could examine whether the allocation should be linked to measurable operational requirements and results.
Such criteria could include improvements in taxpayer compliance, reductions in arrears, expansion of the taxpayer base, modernization of customs systems, audit performance, reduction of administrative costs and measurable increases in domestic revenue.
The objective would be to create a system in which additional resources strengthen collection capacity while taxpayers and the Legislature retain confidence that those resources are being used effectively.
There is also a broader institutional argument behind Findley's proposal.
Revenue authorities face a structural challenge--they are expected to generate resources for the entire government, but their own ability to do so depends partly on how much government invests in their capacity.
A predictable allocation could create greater incentives for long-term planning and investment.
For example, if the LRA knows that a defined portion of collections will be available for its operations, it may be better positioned to invest in technology, training, compliance programs and systems that require resources beyond a single budget cycle.
The danger, however, would be allowing the financing mechanism itself to become disconnected from performance.
That is why Findley's emphasis that five percent may be "more or less" than what is actually required is significant. His position is not simply an endorsement of five percent; it is an argument for a financing formula based on evidence.
Findley's support for strengthening the LRA is also rooted in his history with the institution's development.
He recalled that legislative discussions around separating revenue administration from the Ministry of Finance began during the period when he served as Chairman of the Revenue Committee, around 2009 and 2010.
"When we started, I was the Chairman of Revenue then. We're talking 2009, 2010, way back," Findley recalled.
He described himself as one of the strongest supporters of the LRA in the Legislature and said he was pleased with the progress made since its establishment.
Interestingly, Findley used his own recent experience with the LRA to illustrate both sides of the revenue debate -- the government's responsibility to collect taxes and the taxpayer's right to a fair and functional system.
He said he recently sought a tax-related document and was informed that he had outstanding real estate tax obligations for 2024, 2025 and 2026, despite having paid real estate taxes from 2006 through 2024.
He subsequently visited the LRA, obtained his bill and met with domestic tax officials before settling the outstanding obligations and associated penalties.
"I paid the taxes this morning, to make sure that I came here with my tax fully paid," he said.
Findley used the experience to encourage government officials to lead by example.
"I want us government officials to understand the importance of paying our taxes," he said. "It may not be the right place, but it's the right time that all of us pay our taxes in accordance with the law."
But he immediately added an important qualification:
"But that law also must be fair. I must be able to file my returns."
The comment captures a fundamental requirement for a stronger revenue system: citizens are more likely to comply when they believe the system is accessible, predictable and fair.
LRA strategy seeks to modernize revenue mobilization
The debate comes as LRA Board Chairman David K. Vinton presented the Authority's Corporate Strategic Plan 2025-2029 as a roadmap for improving domestic revenue mobilization.
Vinton said the plan represents "a public affirmation of LRA's renewed commitment to strengthen domestic revenue mobilization, modernize revenue administration, expand taxpayer services and support Liberia's further national development agenda."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The strategy prioritizes improved compliance, digital services, customs and domestic tax operations, data-driven decision-making, taxpayer education and stronger partnerships with government, businesses and development partners.
Those priorities require investment.
But Vinton also emphasized that institutional strengthening must be accompanied by accountability and professionalism.
"A strategic plan becomes meaningful only when it is implemented with discipline, ownership and measurable results," he said.
He further clarified the role of the LRA Board, saying it would provide strategic oversight without interfering with operational matters such as individual tax assessments, appeals and confidential tax issues.
The five-percent debate is therefore larger than the LRA's operating budget.
Liberia remains heavily dependent on domestic revenue to finance public services and development priorities. Every improvement in tax administration has the potential to expand fiscal space for roads, education, healthcare, security and other national priorities.
As Vinton put it, "Revenue mobilization is a national responsibility," noting that taxes finance roads, schools, hospitals, security and other public services.
The strategic question for policymakers is consequently not whether Liberia can afford to invest in its revenue authority, but what level of investment produces the greatest return for the national treasury while maintaining strong accountability.
Findley's intervention provides a basis for that conversation.
A five-percent allocation could potentially give the LRA the predictable resources needed to modernize systems, strengthen compliance, train personnel and improve enforcement. But its effectiveness would depend on whether the money translates into measurable improvements in revenue collection and service delivery.
For that reason, the proposed allocation may ultimately be best viewed not as a guaranteed five-percent entitlement, but as part of a broader performance-based financing conversation between the LRA, Legislature and Ministry of Finance.
