EFORM of the FBR has always been easier to promise than to deliver. Since the late 1990s, governments have tried restructuring, automation, and compliance drives. However, the institution has resisted every change that threatens the entrenched interests within. The basic weaknesses remain a narrow tax base, widespread evasion, and an administration whose discretionary powers invite corruption.

Greater transparency, independent oversight, and reduced contact with taxpayers all threaten arrangements from which officials benefit. That helps explain why change keeps meeting opposition from within the organisation. The recent pen-down strike call by Inland Revenue officers against the reforms showed that this was no ordinary bureaucratic disagreement.

Lost revenue is only a part of the cost of business-as-usual at the FBR. Taxpayers deal directly with officials enjoying wide discretion, which opens the door to harassment and bribery. Businesses and individuals spend time and money on assessments, audits, and disputes, with some paying to avoid trouble even if they have complied. Others stay outside the net because they fear registration will bring arbitrary demands and prolonged dealings with tax officials. Such an administration makes compliance costly and unpredictable, which discourages voluntary registration, erodes trust, and penalises those who already pay. Influential evaders exploit loopholes, while compliant businesses carry the burden. A fairer system cannot be built by squeezing the same documented taxpayers, while much of the potential base stays out of reach.

The proposed faceless assessment and audit system reduces contact between officials and taxpayers, centralises assessments, and relies on third-party data, which narrows room for discretionary abuse and tries to build public trust in the system.

But digitisation alone will not end corruption. Systems can be exploited unless audit selection is transparent and decisions are traceable. Taxpayers need an effective appeals route, and officials who abuse their powers must face real penalties. Independent oversight is equally important. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif`s recent warning that resistance to the ongoing reforms will not be tolerated is, therefore, welcome. But unless his government confronts the forces that frustrated earlier attempts, this one may go the way of previous efforts to stem the rot. He is right that reform must continue despite the resistance. Better salaries and official facilities should be tied to integrity and performance.

Disciplinary action against individual officers, however necessary, is no substitute for changing the incentives and structures that allow corruption to persist. Reform should be judged by whether the tax base widens, compliance gets easier, and taxpayers are treated fairly. The country cannot afford another round in which resistance is briefly overcome, old arrangements return af ter a few months, and honest taxpayers pay for the failure.