Captain CoCo
IRD asks taxpayers every day to pay the correct tax, keep proper records and meet their responsibilities. Taxpayers therefore have every right to ask whether IRD itself is using public money carefully. In August 2026, IRD entered into a two-year agreement to obtain space in the All Ceylon Hindu Congress building near the IRD Head Office in Colombo 02, with a total rental commitment of around Rs. 64.32 million. The first question is simple: why was another building needed? Before committing such a large amount, IRD should have studied the space already available at Head Office and other Colombo offices, the number of officers who actually need accommodation, and future staffing requirements. A large department should know its staff numbers, retirements, transfers, digitalisation plans and office needs before signing a lease. Poor planning should not become a bill for the taxpayer.
The second concern is whether the building was ready for use. The premises reportedly require partitioning, renovation and other work before officers can move in. That means extra cost and, more importantly, extra time. Government renovation work normally requires estimates, procurement procedures, contractor selection and completion checks. If rent is being paid while the building remains partly empty, taxpayers are paying for space that is not being used. The real cost therefore may not stop at Rs. 65 million. There may also be renovation, furniture, IT, security, networking and relocation expenses. There are also questions about the Maharagama office, where IRD is already paying rent. If that operation is moved, the public should know when the existing lease ends, whether two rents will overlap and what the total moving cost will be.
There are also broader questions about whether external influence may have affected the deal. Concerns have been raised about possible involvement or pressure at the Ministry of Finance level, as well as whether wider business and institutional relationships may have had a bearing on the decision-making process. Questions have also been raised about the roles or connections of senior figures, including the current BOI Chairman and the Chairman of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, within this broader network.
Such concerns should be examined transparently, independently and fairly, without prejudging any individual or institution. What matters is establishing whether the decision was made solely on its merits and in the public interest. If public decisions are influenced by personal relationships, institutional interests or preferential treatment, the consequences ultimately extend beyond those directly involved—the cost is borne by the taxpayer and, more broadly, by public trust.
Another concern is the idea of moving the IRD library into the newly rented building. The library is important because it contains valuable tax, legal and economic reference material, but that does not automatically mean it needs a separate rented building. If officers working at Head Office must travel to another location just to use reference material, access may actually become more difficult. A better option may be to keep the most useful material at Head Office, digitise frequently used publications, build an electronic knowledge centre and consider cooperation with institutions such as the National Library for less-used books. At the same time, IRD is also understood to be considering accommodation at Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. If that is so, there must be one clear property plan covering all locations. Otherwise, one building, another renovation and another relocation can slowly turn into a much larger cost that nobody sees as one complete picture.
This finally becomes a question of leadership and accountability. After nearly two years, senior management should be able to understand the Department’s real staff needs, available space and future requirements. If experienced officers are ignored and important decisions are shaped by only a small group close to the leadership, mistakes can become very expensive. The silence of trade unions also deserves attention if officers are unhappy about relocation or believe public money is being wasted. More seriously, questions are being raised about whether outside influence from Ministry of Finance-level or wider business connections played any role in this arrangement. Such claims should be examined through the documents: who proposed the building, who inspected it, who recommended it, who negotiated the rent, who approved it, what valuation was obtained and what alternatives were considered. The Minister of Finance should examine this now, not years later when it appears in an audit report. IRD asks taxpayers to explain every rupee they earn. Taxpayers are equally entitled to ask IRD to explain every rupee it spends. The taxpayer should not be forced to finance poor planning, unnecessary space or someone else’s failure to lead.