The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has officially metamorphosed into the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), unveiling its new institutional brand identity.

The development ushers a new dawn in revenue administration in the country as the new tax laws come into force today.

The NRS came into operation following the signing of its enabling law known as the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Act 2025 by President Bola Tinubu in June 2025.

Speaking at the unveiling of the logo yesterday in Abuja, Executive Chairman of NRS, Zacch Adedeji, explained that the logo and other brand elements for NRS represented an important milestone in the evolution of Nigeria’s revenue administration framework.

This came as a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) turned down a request to stop the President Bola Tinubu-led federal government from implementing the new tax regime scheduled to commence from January 1, 2026.

Also, Director General, Budget Office of the Federation (BoF), Tanimu Yakubu, reaffirmed the integrity of the country’s newly enacted Tax Reform Acts, cautioning against what it described as governance by speculation and unverified claims following allegations of post-passage alterations.

However, delivering ruling, Justice Bello Kawu declined the request and directed the federal government to proceed with the full implementation of the tax law pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Though the ruling was delivered on December 23, the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling signed by the Registrar of the court, Hadiza Sambo Gwandu, dated December 30, 2025, was obtained on Wednesday.

The judge held that there was no concrete and strong evidence before the court to warrant the granting of the reliefs sought.

Specifically, Justice Kawu said: “I have considered the application together with the affidavit in support. I have also considered the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant/applicant together with the judicial authorities cited and I am of the strong view that the court lacks power to stop implementation of a law already signed by the appropriate authority without concrete evidence of any wrong doing.

“At this preliminary stage, it will be difficult if not impossible to prove any wrong doing because at this stage, the court should be careful not to touch on the main issue. It is my considered opinion that granting injunction at this preliminary stage will be touching the subject matter in the main suit.

It should be noted that once an Act is signed into law, it can only be repealed by the lawmakers or any offending section set aside by the court of law; be that as it may, exparte application cannot be used to set aside the coming into force any Act already signed into law or gazetted.

“In view of the above, the implementation of the Tax Act 2025 and other related Acts will commence on January 1, 2026 and continue to be in force pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion before this court, “ Justice Kawu ruled.

Meanwhile, the matter has further been adjourned to January 9, 2026 for hearing of the motion on notice.

President Bola Tinubu had few days ago vowed to proceed with the implementation of the controversial Nigeria Tax Act, 2025.

Responding, a public interest group, the Incorporated Trustees of African Initiative for Abuse of Public Trust, had approached the court with a motion exparte seeking an order of injunction to restrain Tinubu and the federal government from proceeding with the implementation of the new tax law, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed by the group.

The group predicated their legal action on alleged discrepancies in the new tax laws.

Listed as defendants in the motion marked: FCT/HC/M/17240/2025, are the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney General of the Federation, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives and National Assembly as defendants.

The plaintiff in the motion exparte sought for an order of interim injunction pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit to stop/ restrain the federal government, FIRS, National Assembly, or any of its agencies from implementing, executing, and/or enforcing any of the provisions of the gazetted Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025 or the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025 for any reasons, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.

They also sought for another order of interim injunction pending the hearing and determination of the motion notice, restraining the President, either by himself or through any agency of the federal government created under the gazette Nigeria Tax Act, 2025 Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025 or the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025 from implementing the provisions of those Acts of the National Assembly in any states of the federation where applicable, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

However, Adedeji, in a statement issued by his Special Adviser (Media), Dare Adekanmbi, said, “The unveiling of the NRS identity reflects a renewed commitment to a more unified, efficient, and service-oriented revenue system, one that is aligned with Nigeria’s economic transformation agenda and global best practices.”

He said the new identity signalled, “continuity of purpose, strengthened institutional capacity, and a forward-looking approach to supporting taxpayers and national development.

“The Nigeria Revenue Service remains committed to transparency, partnership, and service excellence.

“The unveiling of this new identity represents not an end, but the beginning of a strengthened relationship between the revenue authority and the Nigerian public—built on trust, clarity, and shared prosperity.”

However, Yakubu, in a statement, said the budget office had taken note of concerns raised by the Minority Caucus of the House of Representatives, stressing that the sanctity of the law is central to constitutional democracy and not a mere procedural formality.

According to the office, any suggestion that a law could be altered after debate, passage, authentication, and presidential assent without due process would strike at the core of the republic and undermine citizens’ right to be governed by transparent and stable laws.

The budget office, warned that democratic integrity is also endangered by the careless amplification of unverified claims.

Yakubu said, “A nation cannot be governed by insinuation or sustained on circulating documents of uncertain origin,” adding that public confidence, once shaken by speculation, is often difficult to restore.

BoF emphasised that both government and citizens share a common interest in truth, clarity, and due process, noting that public finance depends heavily on trust in the legality and clarity of fiscal laws.

It welcomed the decision of the National Assembly to investigate the allegations, describing institutional inquiry, not conjecture as the appropriate response to claims of illegality.

On public access to the law, the office agreed that Nigerians and the business community are entitled to clear and authoritative texts of all laws they are required to obey.

Yakubu clarified, however, that the authenticity of legislation is determined by certified legislative records and official publication processes, not by informal or viral reproductions.

He also underscored the importance of separation of powers, warning that claims suggesting Nigeria is being governed by “fake laws,” if not backed by established facts, risk eroding confidence in democratic institutions.

He stressed that legislative scrutiny should not be dismissed by the executive, noting that oversight is a constitutional duty, not an act of hostility.

From a fiscal perspective, the budget office said legal certainty is essential for revenue projections, macroeconomic stability, budget credibility, and investor confidence.

While it is not the custodian of legislative records, it maintained that uncertainty around operative tax provisions directly affects economic planning.

To restore confidence, the office proposed a set of measures, including the publication of verified reference texts in a single public repository, orderly access to Certified True Copies for stakeholders, clear public explanations where discrepancies are alleged, and strict alignment of all implementing regulations with authenticated legal texts.

Further addressing calls for suspension of the tax reforms, Yakubu cautioned against allowing prudence to slide into paralysis, arguing that properly implemented tax reform is necessary to reduce dependence on borrowing and inflationary financing, while easing indirect burdens on vulnerable citizens.

He said, “Where clarification is required, it must be provided; where correction is required, it must be effected; where investigation is required, it must proceed”, adding that governance and reform should not be stalled by unresolved conjecture.

The BoF reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to fiscal transparency, institutional integrity, and reforms that advance national prosperity while safeguarding citizens’ rights.

Commercial banks in Nigeria will begin charging a N50 stamp duty on electronic transfers of N10,000 and above starting January 1, 2026, in line with the newly enacted Tax Act.

CBN

The Electronic Money Transfer Levy (EMTL), now rebranded as stamp duty, applies as a one-off fee on any electronic receipt or transfer into accounts at commercial banks or financial institutions for amounts reaching or exceeding N10,000—or its equivalent in other currencies.

United Bank for Africa (UBA) notified customers via email on Tuesday, confirming the shift where senders, rather than recipients, will now bear the charge. Salary payments and intra-bank self-transfers remain exempt.

“Stamp Duty applies to transactions of N10,000 and above,” the email stated, emphasising transparency in the change from previous deductions borne by beneficiaries.

This levy forms part of broader tax reforms pushed by President Bola Tinubu’s administration, aimed at fiscal restructuring despite public pushback.

UBA reaffirmed its commitment to keeping customers informed amid evolving banking regulations.

By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria’s new tax identification portal goes live nationwide tomorrow, Monday, January 1, 2026, marking a pivotal moment in the country’s fiscal and financial governance. Designed to modernise tax administration and strengthen taxpayer identification, the reform reflects a decisive shift in economic strategy by a government grappling with shrinking oil revenues, rising public debt, and widening fiscal deficits.

New Tax Law

At the centre of this shift is a deeper integration of identity systems, banking data, and tax administration, most notably the adoption of the National Identification Number (NIN) as a tax identification mechanism for operating bank accounts. In parallel, banks will also begin charging a N50 stamp duty on electronic transfers of N10,000 and above, following the implementation of the Tax Act.

Individually, these measures may appear modest, even reasonable. Collectively, however, they signal a fundamental reordering of the relationship between the state, banks, and citizens with far-reaching implications for banking business, customer trust, financial inclusion, and credit creation.

Banks at the Centre of Fiscal Enforcement

Under the new tax framework, Nigerian banks are no longer merely financial intermediaries or corporate taxpayers. They are increasingly positioned as collection agents, reporting hubs, and frontline enforcement points for government revenue policy.

The linkage of NIN to tax compliance, combined with transaction-based stamp duties, reinforces a stark reality that the banking system has become the most visible and accessible channel through which the state now extracts revenue from citizens.

This expanded role exposes banks to a new layer of risk not just financial or operational, but social, reputational, and political risks that extend far beyond balance sheets.

A Structural Shift in the Banking, Tax Relationship

Historically, banks played a facilitative role in tax compliance, primarily through payment processing and remittance support. The use of NIN as a tax identifier marks a structural departure from this model.

Bank accounts are no longer merely financial tools; they are becoming gateways to tax visibility.

This shift fundamentally alters the risk profile of the banking business. Banks are now exposed not only to credit, market, and operational risks, but also to heightened social backlash, reputational damage, and political sensitivity, arising from their expanded enforcement role.

Account Friction and Slower Customer Onboarding

One of the earliest and most visible consequences of NIN-based tax identification is increased friction in account opening and maintenance.

Consequently, in a real sense, millions of Nigerians will continue to face challenges with the NIN system, including delays in enrolment and correction, biometric mismatches as well as  inconsistencies between NIN, BVN, and bank records.

For banks, this translates into slower onboarding processes, higher rates of account restriction or rejection, and increased congestion across branches and digital platforms.

What should be a growth engine for deposit mobilisation instead becomes a bottleneck, resulting in lost customers, fewer transactions, and weakened scale advantages in an increasingly competitive banking environment.

Banks as the Face of an Unpopular Tax Regime

Perhaps the most underappreciated consequence of the new tax regime is the escalation of customer hostility toward banks.

When accounts are flagged, restricted, or subjected to enhanced scrutiny, customers rarely direct their frustration at tax authorities or policymakers. Instead, they confront the most visible institution in the chain, their bank.

Banks are increasingly blamed for account freezes, accused of colluding with government, and perceived as punitive rather than service-oriented institutions. This hostility is particularly pronounced among informal sector operators, small traders, artisans, and self-employed professionals with irregular income streams.

In a low-trust economy such as Nigeria’s, perception often outweighs regulation. Banks risk becoming the public face of coercive taxation, absorbing reputational damage for policies they neither designed nor control.

Erosion of Trust in the Banking Relationship

Banking fundamentally depends on trust that deposits are safe, transactions are private, and institutions act in customers’ best interests.

When NIN becomes a tax enforcement gateway, that trust begins to fray. Banks are no longer seen primarily as custodians of savings, enablers of enterprise, or neutral financial intermediaries. Instead, they are increasingly perceived as extensions of tax authorities, surveillance nodes, and compliance police.

Once trust erodes, customer behaviour adjust often in ways that undermine the formal financial system itself.

The Hidden Impact of the N50 Stamp Duty

The introduction of a N50 stamp duty on electronic transfers of N10,000 and above may appear trivial. In practice, it carries outsized implications.

For many Nigerians, especially low- and middle-income earners, electronic transfers are not discretionary transactions. They are salary payments, family support remittances, SME operating expenses, and routine commercial settlements.

Customers rarely distinguish between government levies and bank charges. The stamp duty will therefore be perceived as yet another bank fee, deepening resentment toward institutions already accused of excessive charges.

Behaviourally, customers may respond by breaking transactions into smaller amounts, increasing cash usage, or migrating to informal transfer channels, distorting transaction patterns and weakening the efficiency of the digital payments ecosystem.

Although banks merely collect the duty on behalf of the government, they will once again bear the reputational cost.

Threat to Deposit Mobilisation and Liquidity

Fear of tax exposure is a powerful behavioural driver. As NIN becomes closely associated with tax scrutiny and transaction charges mount, many customers are likely to reduce account balances, avoid lump-sum deposits, split transactions to stay below thresholds, or move funds outside the banking system entirely.

For banks, the consequences are clear, as these will result in slower deposit growth, volatile liquidity positions, and reduced capacity to fund loans.

Deposit mobilisation is the lifeblood of banking. Any policy that discourages formal savings weakens banks’ intermediation role and, by extension, the broader economy.

Reversal of Financial Inclusion Gains

Nigeria has invested more than a decade in expanding financial inclusion through agent banking, digital wallets, and tiered KYC frameworks. The use of NIN as a tax trigger threatens to reverse these gains.

Many newly banked individuals, particularly those at the base of the economic pyramid, may abandon formal accounts, revert to cash-based transactions, or rely on informal savings mechanisms.

The irony is stark as an identifier designed to formalise the economy may inadvertently push activity back into informality.

Rising Compliance, Legal, and Technology Costs

Operationally, integrating NIN as a tax identifier significantly increases banks’ compliance burden. However, institutions are expected to synchronise multiple databases, resolve inconsistencies at scale, implement continuous monitoring systems while also managing customer disputes arising from mismatches or wrongful flags.

The challenges inherent in these demands require heavy investment in IT infrastructure, expanded compliance teams and enhanced cybersecurity. The costs either erode profitability or are passed on to customers, further fuelling public resentment.

Credit Creation and Economic Growth at Risk

Reduced deposits, higher compliance costs, reputational strain, and customer attrition converge on a single outcome that mainly constrained lending capacity.

There is no two ways about this, banks under sustained pressure will tighten credit standards, reduce SME and consumer lending, and favour low-risk government securities. The ripple effects include slower job creation, constrained entrepreneurship, and, on a dangerous level, it leads to weaker economic growth, ultimately undermining the very revenue base the tax reform seeks to expand.

Revenue Without Ruin

No doubt, linking NIN to tax identification and expanding transaction-based levies may enhance government visibility over economic activity, but in reality they carry significant unintended consequences for banking business.

They risk weakening customer trust, undermining deposit mobilisation, reversing financial inclusion gains, increasing operational and reputational risks, and constraining credit growth.

Banks do not oppose taxation. What they caution against is turning financial inclusion infrastructure into a blunt instrument of tax enforcement without adequate safeguards.

For the policy to succeed without damaging the banking system, regulators must ensure clear thresholds and exemptions, strong data protection guarantees, phased implementation and ensure sustained public education to redirect hostility away from banks.

Ultimately, the critical question is not legislative readiness but execution, especially coordination across institutions, technological preparedness and the capacity to prevent unintended disruption to businesses and citizens alike. The authorities must understand that when revenue meets risk, wisdom lies in balance.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]