The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has released troubling results of an examination assessing the competence of inland revenue officers handling sales tax and income tax in Karachi, revealing significant weaknesses. On the FBR chairman's instructions, the test evaluated officers in Grades 17 to 19, according to a training assessment report. The report stated 150 sales tax officers and 143 income tax officers took the open-book test, requiring them to identify errors in draft orders and explain the reasons. No sales tax officer reached the 60% benchmark, while only four income tax officers scored 60% or above. Average scores were 26.4% in sales tax and 33.3% in income tax, with 47 sales tax and 16 income tax officers scoring below 20%. Only 15 of the 150 sales tax officers met the standard to issue an order under their own signatures. In income tax, only 14 of the 143 officers met the standard for issuing a correct order, meaning most can draft notices but cannot decide on them without supervision. Of 139 officers who took the combined examination for both categories, only four met the standard for issuing correct orders in both. In sales tax, only 21 officers could effectively review the legal aspects of a case prepared by another officer. In income tax, 28 officers could review orders drafted by colleagues. The checking layer is largely missing, as only eight officers could vet orders in both taxes. Among sales tax commissioners and additional commissioners, only four of 56 met the review standard; in income tax, only six of 53 met it. Deputy commissioners performed better than other positions, with most of those who could adjudicate or vet orders concentrated among them, mostly in the Large Taxpayers Office. The report found higher grades did not guarantee stronger competence. Officers identified errors but struggled to explain legal grounds; 31% of sales tax entries identified non-existent mistakes, along with 24% in income tax. The report said 14 officers were unfit to handle cases in either category without retraining, while 31 were at desk level or below in both. It recommended training in adjudication, decision-making, evidence assessment and drafting orders. It proposed assigning work by competence rather than designation and strengthening the order review system. Findings were based on three cases per category and should be treated as an initial indicator, the report clarified.