- Oil Marketers Warn New Tax Rule Could Raise Financing Costs and Pump Prices
The Chamber of Oil Marketing Companies has called for the indefinite suspension of a provision in Ghana’s new Customs Act that transfers downstream petroleum tax obligations to bulk suppliers, warning that the change could increase financing costs, place pressure on fuel prices and create risks to national supply.
COMAC is opposing the implementation of Section 136 of the Customs Act, 2026, arguing that the measure was introduced without adequate consultation with the companies most directly affected.
The provision requires Bulk Import, Distribution and Export Companies to account for tax at the point of sale, while permitting the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority to defer payment for up to 21 days upon the provision of a bank guarantee.
COMAC said the arrangement effectively transfers the downstream tax liability currently carried by Oil Marketing Companies and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Marketing Companies to the bulk-supply tier.
“This far-reaching change was introduced without due consultation and presents dire consequences for operators, the industry and the national economy,” the chamber said in a letter to GRA Commissioner-General Anthony Kwasi Sarpong.
The dispute is about more than the administrative point at which petroleum taxes are collected. The tax point determines which companies must finance the government’s revenue obligation and how long they must carry that liability before receiving payment from customers.
Under the current arrangement described by COMAC, BIDECs pay import duties and port-related charges when petroleum products enter the country, while OMCs and LPG marketing companies account for applicable taxes and levies further down the supply chain, including at the ex-pump stage.
COMAC contends that this structure broadly aligns tax liability with the point at which liquidity is generated.
Section 136, it argues, disrupts that alignment by requiring bulk suppliers to finance taxes before downstream customers have paid for the products supplied to them.
“It migrates liability currently secured by OMC/LPGMC guarantees, bonds and self-recognisance to the bulk-supply tier,” COMAC said.
The proposed change could significantly increase the working-capital requirements of petroleum importers and bulk distributors.
A BIDEC required to account for taxes at the point of sale may have to obtain larger bank credit facilities, provide additional guarantees or commit more collateral while waiting for payment from OMCs.
Banks facing larger exposures may respond by tightening lending requirements, reducing trade-finance limits or charging more for credit.
The additional cost would not necessarily remain with the bulk suppliers. BIDECs could reduce the commercial credit extended to OMCs, demand stronger payment security or seek to recover part of the expense through petroleum margins.
COMAC warned that the eventual outcome could include tighter credit and higher prices at the pump.
The risk is particularly important because petroleum prices already respond to international product prices, exchange-rate movements and domestic taxes and levies. Adding another financing layer could amplify the effect of existing cost pressures.
Smaller OMCs may be especially vulnerable. Companies without large balance sheets depend heavily on commercial credit from bulk suppliers to obtain products and sustain operations.
If BIDECs reduce credit exposure in response to their new tax obligations, smaller marketers may struggle to secure enough fuel. This could encourage consolidation in the downstream market and weaken competition.
The GRA’s reported rationale is that collecting taxes from fewer entities would make administration easier and address defaults by petroleum marketers.
COMAC, however, said this justification had not been supported by a policy memorandum, financial assessment or evidence showing that transferring liability to BIDECs would resolve the underlying compliance failures.
The chamber argues that petroleum tax arrears have partly resulted from weaknesses in enforcing existing controls within the Integrated Customs Management System.
According to COMAC, system overrides allowed some operators to continue lifting petroleum products after exceeding approved credit limits or payment periods.
If the underlying problem is weak enforcement, transferring the tax liability may change the identity of the taxpayer without correcting the control failure.
“GRA would face an impossible choice: enforce and trigger a national supply shock, or forbear and allow arrears to balloon,” the chamber warned. “Risk becomes concentrated, not reduced.”
Dealing with fewer taxpayers may simplify monitoring and reconciliation. But requiring a smaller group of systemically important suppliers to carry larger obligations also increases the economic consequences of a default or liquidity crisis at any one company.
A distributed compliance system may generate several smaller points of failure. A concentrated arrangement may be easier to supervise but could create fewer and much larger points of vulnerability.
Administrative convenience does not, by itself, reduce fiscal risk.
COMAC wants the authorities to provide a written account of the control failures that allegedly allowed affected petroleum operators to continue lifting products after breaching their credit limits or payment deadlines.
It is also demanding an independent review of the granting of non-bonded status and other material system overrides.
The review, the chamber said, should establish the applicable criteria, the officials who authorised the overrides, the supporting justification and the relevant audit trail.
COMAC also wants appropriate administrative or disciplinary action taken where any breach is established.
These demands shift part of the debate away from the design of Section 136 and towards the administration of the existing system.
If operators accumulated arrears because established ICUMS controls were overridden or not enforced, then the government’s priority may need to be strengthening access controls, authorisation procedures and audit accountability.
Changing the tax point without resolving those weaknesses could allow similar problems to reappear under the new arrangement.
COMAC has also identified what it describes as an internal inconsistency in the Customs Act.
According to the chamber, Section 126(6) fixes the petroleum tax point at 21 days after the close of a lifting window, while Section 136 establishes tax liability at the time of sale and provides a separate 21-day deferral.
The existence of two possible triggers for the same consignment creates uncertainty over when the liability becomes payable, how it must be secured and which party is ultimately responsible.
Such ambiguity can complicate cash-flow planning for companies and tax enforcement for the GRA.
COMAC said no impact assessment, transitional plan, financing framework or accompanying memorandum had been provided to demonstrate how the two provisions would operate together.
That strengthens the case for a structured transition involving the GRA, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Energy and Green Transition, National Petroleum Authority, financial institutions and industry representatives.
Before implementation, the government would need to quantify the additional working-capital burden on BIDECs, the likely demand for bank guarantees, the effect on trade-finance capacity and the potential implications for petroleum prices.
Petroleum taxation operates within a supply chain in which liquidity and physical product availability are closely connected.
Bulk suppliers require foreign exchange and trade finance to import products. OMCs need working capital and supplier credit to move fuel from depots to filling stations and consumers.
If a large BIDEC encounters financing constraints, the consequences could quickly spread across the distribution network.
The issue therefore extends beyond the commercial interests of individual petroleum companies. Fuel is an input into transport, logistics, agriculture, manufacturing and household expenditure.
A reform that increases the cost of financing petroleum imports could create economy-wide consequences, including higher inflation and weaker business margins.
COMAC argues that the government must assess Section 136 not only according to its potential revenue benefits, but also by its effect on the resilience of the petroleum supply chain.
Despite its objections, COMAC has welcomed other parts of the Customs Act, including Sections 126 and 127.
Those provisions maintain the customs-controlled framework for registering petroleum operators and supervising the bonded storage, lifting and movement of petroleum products.
“COMAC remains a willing partner in strengthening compliance and revenue mobilisation, best achieved by enforcing the existing mechanism rather than replacing it,” the chamber said.
“We stand ready to engage constructively toward a shared resolution to safeguard our members and national energy security,” it added.
The chamber’s position is therefore not that Ghana should abandon efforts to improve petroleum tax collection. Its argument is that stronger enforcement would be more effective and less disruptive than transferring an untested financial burden to the bulk-supply tier.
The policy question is ultimately one of risk distribution.
The existing arrangement may expose government revenue to defaults by multiple marketers. The proposed system could reduce the number of taxpayers the GRA must monitor, but concentrate much larger obligations among companies whose financial stability is critical to fuel availability.
A sustainable solution may require stronger enforcement of existing controls alongside a detailed assessment of the proposed change.
The success of Section 136 will not be measured simply by whether it makes petroleum taxes easier to collect. It will be judged by whether Ghana can improve compliance and protect public revenue without making fuel more expensive, weakening competition or creating avoidable risks to national energy security
