The Bar said it wanted to follow the duo’s challenge against the validity of the Income Tax Act 1967 on grounds that the cases were of public interest.
This included whether Section 106(3) of the Act contravened Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, and whether it is ultra vires as it usurps the power of the judiciary.
They are also looking to see whether Article 121 of the Constitution is relevant when it comes to civil recovery proceedings in tax matters.
The Bar is looking at whether Najib and Nazifuddin’s claims that the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) had acted in bad faith is within the scope of Section 106(3) of the Act and whether the court could consider such a defence.
“Some of our members represent individuals in tax recovery lawsuits filed against them. We understand the implications that may arise from Section 106(3).
“We humbly pray that our application to join as ‘amicus curiae’ will be allowed by the court,” it said.
The Bar listed eight lawyers who will be representing the body, if the court grants the amicus curiae application.
“We have spoken to the applicants’ (Najib, Nazifuddin) lawyers and they have no objection to our amicus curiae application,” it said, adding that it had yet to reach out to counsel for the LHDN.
Muhammad Farhan Shafee, who is representing both father and son, said they were waiting for the court’s instruction on the Bar’s application.
Najib and Nazifuddin are seeking leave to appeal the summary judgment order before the apex court in an attempt to quash LHDN’s move to recover more than RM1.7 billion in tax arrears from them.
They have filed nine questions of law to obtain leave.
Leave will only be granted if the applicants can show that the legal questions are of public importance and are being raised for the first time.
On Sept 9, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from Najib and Nazifuddin to set aside summary judgments obtained by LHDN as part of its civil recovery proceedings.
A three-member bench, chaired by Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, said the Income Tax Act 1967 provided a scheme on how assessment and tax collection should be made.
Abdul Karim said that in taxation law, outstanding tax must be paid after an assessment was made and notice sent to taxpayers, within a specified time.
Last year, High Court judge Ahmad Bache ruled that Najib had to pay LHDN RM1.69 billion, inclusive of additional tax and penalties for the assessment years from 2011 to 2017.
Separately, High Court judge Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim ordered Nazifuddin to pay RM37.6 million in unpaid taxes from 2011 to 2017.