Lecture 77 Β· Pernod Ricard lost one refund by hiding a dead claim, and won another on the taxman's missed deadline.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: In one day before one judge, Pernod Ricard fought two refund battles. It lost KSh 58 million by burying a rejected claim inside a fresh application, and won KSh 29 million because the taxman decided fifty-seven days after the statutory clock had run out. Process decided both.
Illustration: Precursor
You are owed two tax refunds. On one, the authority rejected you years ago and you let it lie, then slipped the old claim into a new application. On the other, the authority simply missed its own deadline to decide. Both reach court on the same day, before the same judge, and both turn on process rather than on whether you truly overpaid.
Put yourself in the finance director's chair. When a refund turns on process and not on the merits, which deadlines save you, and which shortcuts sink you?
Continue reading
KES 49 for the rest of this piece.
About 772 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