Lecture 76 Β· The taxman refused a refund on an audit report it never showed, and the tribunal ordered the money paid.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: Doll overpaid KSh 54 million, and the taxman issued a voucher acknowledging it, then rejected his refund five times, the last time citing an audit report it would not produce. The tribunal held a decision resting on hidden evidence is unfair, and ordered the refund within ninety days.
Illustration: Precursor
You overpaid your tax, corrected the return, and the authority approved the correction and even issued its own voucher acknowledging that it owes you the money. Then it refuses to pay, rejecting your refund again and again, and the final rejection rests on an audit report it will not let you see.
Put yourself in the taxpayer's chair. When the authority rejects your refund on a report it will not show you, can that decision stand?
Continue reading
KES 49 for the rest of this piece.
About 774 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