Lecture 120 Β· A medical centre said it had sent its records, could not prove it, and its objection was never valid.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: KRA billed a medical centre about KSh 7 million after its NHIF deposits exceeded its declared income. The centre objected and said it had sent its books, but could not prove delivery and missed the deadline. The tribunal held the objection was never valid and never reached the merits.
Illustration: Precursor
The authority looks at the money paid into your account and says you declared too little, billing you for the gap. You believe some of those receipts were reimbursements, not profit, and you have the ledgers to show it. You object, you say you sent the records, but you cannot prove they ever arrived, and the deadline the authority set for them passes.
Put yourself in the director's chair. When you object to a tax bill but cannot prove you sent the papers, has the authority ever had a valid objection to decide?
Continue reading
KES 49 for the rest of this piece.
About 685 more words, including the reasoning and what it means for operators. One payment, this piece, kept for good. No subscription and no renewal.
The Precursor Editorial Team
Precursor is published by the FinTech Association of Kenya and exercises independent editorial judgement under the Editorial Independence Charter. This article is labelled Precursor Executive Classroom, which marks commercial material. Knowledge on Tax and financial judgement.
Lecture 126 Β· A director kept meeting the taxman instead of appealing, and four years on the bill had only grown.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: KRA confirmed a KSh 899,328 income-tax bill against Saphira, and its director spent four years in meetings and relied on his compliance certificates instead of appealing. The tribunal held meetings do not stop the thirty-day clock, a certificate is not proof of payment, and refused leave to appeal out of time; the debt had grown to KSh 1.4 million.
Tax and financial judgement Β· 4 min read Β· Paid
Lecture 125 Β· A rice importer called cleaning and repacking manufacturing, and the court said packaging is not making.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: Mjengo claimed an investment deduction on KSh 1.5 million of machinery that cleaned and repackaged imported rice, calling it manufacturing. Through three forums the ruling held that packaging alone is not making goods, the rice remained rice, and a definition framed with 'means' is exhaustive. The deduction was refused.
Tax and financial judgement Β· 4 min read Β· Paid
Lecture 124 Β· A contractor said the money was his clients', had no agreements to show it, and the assessment stood.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: KRA billed MU-BEI KSh 1.7 million after its eTIMS invoices far exceeded its declared sales. The company said the money was clients' funds for materials, passed on as an agent, but had no written agency agreements and no reconciliation. The tribunal held VAT fell due on the invoices and dismissed the appeal.
Tax and financial judgement Β· 4 min read Β· Paid