[ATTACH=full]302532[/ATTACH]
hii kenya ukikaa ni kama unaongea ukweli sana unataftiwa kitulizo kamili
Hehehe, insecurity
You must be kept busy uwache kusumbua wakuMBWA wakila nyama.
sonko malong at work.
Yes. He should ask Sonko how it went down. Anaongea mingi yet kuna wakubwa wanajua weak points zake. Only Raila can wash AAA his sins.
Na huyu Raila hawezi taftiwa weak points pia??
Michuki tried to teach people that “you cannot challenge government” period. The lesson can save people a lot of grief.
No, Ndii really hates Uhuru. There’s a time he tweeted that we’re better off with Ruto than Uhuru succeeding himself
He is very emotional, like a woman on periods. I think he is gaay like homo @uwesmake.
Sam Kiplagat is the article editor, wewe unadhani anatoka pande gani?
The funny part about this is that KRA might end up losing more in court fees than the amount they are seeking from Dr Ndii.
They failed to follow due procedure in making their VAT claim i.e they broke the law, something that the tax tribunal duly noted.
And KRA has a history of failing to win these cases because they are far too overzealous in carrying out their work.
Do we still have people believing that KRA actually undergoes any losses ehen seeking taxes through court
KRA management need to be investigated
How much will KRA spend on legal fees just to get 2.8M??
Even if KRA wins, the amount the court will tell ndii to pay will probably be not more than a quarter of the amount (700k)…Na lawyer atakula 30M
I think Kuna ka mdosi Fulani KRA kanakula Na hawa ma lawyers
Yes.
[SIZE=7]KRA loses Sh2.5bn tax claim from sugar importing firm[/SIZE]
Thursday, February 22, 2018 20:28
The Kenya Revenue Authority has lost its claim for Sh2.5 billion tax from a consignment of imported Brazilian sugar.
https://www-businessdailyafrica-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.businessdailyafrica.com/image/view/-/4316158/medRes/1730572/-/11cf35y/-/port.jpgThe Port of Mombasa, a regional hub for imports and exports in the region. FILE PHOTO | NMG
https://www-businessdailyafrica-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.businessdailyafrica.com/image/view/-/3831354/medRes/1576494/-/3j6otqz/-/BDgeneric_logo.jpg
By PHILIP MUYANGA
More by this Author
IN SUMMARY
[ul]
[li]High Court said sugar, brought in by Darasa Investment, was entitled to be cleared duty-free.[/li][li]Justice Eric Ogola in a judgment said he was satisfied that the vessel that carried the consignment from Brazil could not dock at the Port of Mombasa due to its size, hence the sugar had to be trans-shipped in Dubai.[/li][li]He said KRA discriminated against Darasa Investment Ltd when it demanded that it pays the tax for the 40,000 metric tonnes of sugar yet other importers of the commodity did not face any hurdles.[/li][/ul]
KRA loses Sh2.5bn tax claim from sugar importing firm - Business Daily
=============
[SIZE=5]KRA loses capital gains tax battle with banks[/SIZE]
By KAMAU MUTHONI | February 01th 2020 at 12:00:00 GMT +0300
BUSINESS NEWS
The Court of Appeal has put brakes on Kenya Revenue Authority’s quest to charge banks capital gains tax on land auctioned to recover unpaid debts
The Court of Appeal has put brakes on Kenya Revenue Authority’s (KRA) quest to charge banks capital gains tax on land auctioned to recover unpaid debts.
Appeal court judges William Ouko, Hannah Okwengu and Fatuma Sichale dismissed KRA’s appeal against the Kenya Bankers Association’s position that the tax amounted to double taxation as they are also required to pay stamp duty.
The judges also faulted KRA for not involving banks while re-introducing the tax.
Capital gains tax (CGT) was suspended in 1985 only to be re-introduced in the Finance Act, 2014, with the effective date being January 1, 2015.
=========
[SIZE=7]Taxpayer victory in dispute on taxation of foreign exchange losses[/SIZE]
February 5, 2020
The High Court has given its decision in Income Tax Appeal No.16 of 2017 Delmonte Kenya Limited v. The Commissioner of Domestic Tax. In allowing the appeal, the High Court has determined that foreign exchange losses realised through the conversion of debt to equity are tax deductible under section 4A of the Income Tax Act (ITA).
From the 2001 year of income, the appellant took out unsecured, interest-free loans denominated in USD and GBP from a foreign related party. The loans were used to finance its day-to-day business requirements. As at December 2008, the total outstanding loans amounted to US$28,251,615.62 and £1,464,272.89.
As required by Kenyan law, the appellant prepared its annual financial statements in Kenyan Shillings for each year of income. At this point, it would translate the outstanding balances on these foreign currency loans into Kenyan Shillings. This process resulted in foreign exchange losses or gains, depending on the prevailing exchange rate. The appellant deferred the unrealised foreign exchange gains and losses for tax purposes in each year of income and, as at 31 December 2008, the total cumulative unrealised foreign exchange losses amounted to KShs 401,261,996.
In November 2009, the appellant resolved to clear the outstanding loan balances by:
[ul]
[li]converting a large portion of the debt into equity by issuing ordinary shares; and[/li][li]offsetting a small part of the outstanding debt amount against inter-company receivables.[/li][/ul]
At this point, the appellant treated the previously unrealised foreign exchange losses of KShs 401,261,996 as realised and took a deduction of this amount in its tax computation for the 2009 year of income.
The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) conducted an audit of the appellant’s business covering the 2009-2011 years of income. At the conclusion of the audit, KRA issued an assessment in which it disallowed the deductions taken by the appellant in respect of the realised foreign exchange losses. The basis of the assessment was that the foreign exchange losses had not been realised and, furthermore, were capital in nature and therefore not tax deductible. The assessment was subsequently confirmed on 16 September 2013.
The appellant appealed KRA’s assessment at the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) on the basis that:
[ul]
[li]settling the outstanding loan balances through conversion of debt to equity and offsets against receivables had caused the previously unrealised forex losses of 401,261,996 to be realized; and[/li][li]being a realised foreign exchange loss, the full amount of KShs 401,261,996 was tax deductible based on section 4A of the ITA.[/li][/ul]
KRA, on the other hand, argued that the manner in which the debt was settled did not result in the realisation of the foreign exchange losses and that the conversion of debt to equity was a transaction that is “capital” in nature and therefore not tax deductible under section 16 of the ITA which sets out deductions not allowed for tax purposes. KRA also argued that it was not one of the capital transactions provided as being deductible under section 15 of the ITA which also provides for tax allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses were realised upon the permanent cessation of the obligation to pay the debt. This was tantamount to “payment” of the debt. It followed that both the conversion of debt to equity, as well as offsetting amounts against receivables, resulted in the realisation of the foreign exchange losses.
The Tribunal, however, went on to find that the conversion of debt to equity was capital in nature and therefore the foreign exchange losses in this respect were not tax deductible. Being aggrieved by this finding, the appellant appealed to the High Court on the basis that section 4A of the ITA does not in any way restrict the nature of realisation.
The High Court has allowed the appeal, determining that foreign exchange losses realised through the conversion of debt to equity are deductible under section 4A of the ITA. There is no express or implicit restriction on the manner in which realisation occurs.
[SIZE=6]What this decision means for you[/SIZE]
Taxpayers may rely on section 4A of the ITA to make tax deductions of realised foreign exchange losses as long as they do not fall under the existing provisos.
The court has pointed out that section 4A of the ITA as currently worded does not limit the nature of realised foreign exchange losses to be taken into account and gone as far as recommending legislative changes to remedy this. Parliament may take the High Court’s cue and pass amendments to this effect.
This is yet another decision where the courts have considered and applied the principle of strict interpretation of tax laws. The court has done this to reach a rational outcome that achieves consistent results, irrespective of the perceived advantage to taxpayers or to the KRA.
KRA has a right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal but, unless and until this decision is overturned, it will apply to both taxpayers and KRA.
KRA doesn’t always lose but it doesn’t always win either especially where the Tax Tribunal rules against them for unprocedural conduct.
Ask any lawyer involved in tax litigation and they will confirm this.
Seems like a paltry sum for the guy.
Hehehe eti kitulizo kamili:D:D
Jameson Wanjohi Wamashati doesn’t give a damn. In 2yrs he will be out of office.
Am sure he’s a dual citizen yet he’s president
Weak ya RAO ni ‘Red Carpet’ and the Territory that comes with it.