Lecture 90 Β· Transfleet said it had objected and been ignored for sixty days, and could not prove the letter ever reached the taxman.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: Transfleet relied on the rule that an objection the taxman ignores for sixty days is deemed allowed. But it could show no stamp, email or receipt that its objection had ever been delivered, and the tribunal held the rule never applied, leaving a KSh 390 million bill.
Illustration: Precursor
You object to a tax assessment and hear nothing for sixty days, so you rely on the rule that an objection the authority fails to decide in time is automatically allowed. Then the authority says it never received your objection at all, and you reach for your proof of sending it and find you have none.
Put yourself in the director's chair. When you object and the authority is silent for sixty days, is your objection approved, or must you first prove you sent it?
Continue reading
KES 49 for the rest of this piece.
About 717 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