FBR to assess IRS officials’ capabilities on 17th
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue’s (FBR) ‘training needs assessment’ will be conducted in Lahore next Tuesday (November 17), following the completion of assessments in Islamabad and Karachi to evaluate the sales tax and income tax capabilities of Inland Revenue officials working in Grade-17 and above.
A senior FBR official has clarified misconceptions surrounding the Inland Revenue Officers’ Capability Assessment recently conducted in Karachi.
When contacted by Business Recorder regarding the results of these assessments, FBR officials categorically denied that any written tests had been conducted. An FBR official stated that the exercise was a ‘training needs assessment’, a routine process undertaken by the bureau on the basis of identified requirements. The assessment, the official clarified, should not be construed as a written test of tax officials.
A report circulated on social media claimed that only 15 of 150 officers assessed in Sales Tax and 14 out of 143 officers assessed in Income Tax were considered capable of independently adjudicating cases.
Responding to this, the FBR official said that the said reported figures and numbers have no basis. “Does the report contain any signature of the FBR official or FBR official stamp? I can make the same kind of report as economic journalists through AI. The report you are talking about is not authentic, the official clarified.
Meanwhile, the recently circulated Karachi Inland Revenue Officers’ Capability Assessment Report has triggered serious concerns regarding the legality, transparency, methodology and underlying objectives of surprise competency examinations conducted among officers serving in the FBR.
A critical examination of the social media report has questioned whether a single assessment, based on artificially prepared case studies, can legitimately determine the professional competence of officers recruited through the competitive CSS examination and entrusted with statutory responsibilities.
Questions have been raised regarding the legal authority under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and relevant service rules for conducting such examinations and subsequently recommending restrictions on officers’ statutory functions, postings and professional responsibilities.
While identifying training needs is a legitimate administrative objective, using an inadequately validated examination to impose adverse service consequences raises concerns regarding procedural fairness and established service protections.
The reported involvement of artificial intelligence, particularly Claude AI, in preparing examination case studies and evaluating answer scripts has also come under scrutiny. Questions have been raised about the qualifications of examiners, independent human verification, transparency of marking criteria, and the absence of an effective mechanism for challenging disputed results. However, the extent of AI involvement remains unverified and requires official clarification.
Concerns have further emerged that such assessments may be used to build a narrative of institutional incompetence to justify sweeping structural reforms within FBR, potentially benefiting external consulting firms and technology providers.
Significantly, the assessment itself acknowledges that its findings are based on a single test involving three cases in each tax and should be treated as indicative. Critics argue that such limited findings cannot reasonably justify publicly categorising experienced officers as professionally incapable or unfit for statutory assignments.
The public circulation of individual officers’ names, scores and professional classifications has also raised concerns about confidentiality, institutional morale and reputational damage. Questions have additionally been raised regarding repeated transfers, administrative pressures and whether responsibility for shortcomings in revenue administration is being disproportionately shifted onto field officers rather than examining the effectiveness of senior management, technological reforms and institutional policies.
There are growing calls for an independent review of the examination framework, disclosure of its legal authorisation, AI usage and marking methodology, and provision of a fair review mechanism to affected officers.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026