Uganda Case Law

Dr. Higenyi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 90 of 2023)

Dr. Higenyi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 90 of 2023) [2023] UGTAT 61 (14 November 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 90 of 2023

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Katwe, Panel Member, Najjemba

The tribunal held that payment of 30% of the tax in dispute is a statutory and mandatory requirement under Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The applicant's argument that impoundment of a vehicle valued at more than 30% of the tax liability constitutes payment was rejected. The law requires actual payment in cash, not mere seizure or holding of assets. Furthermore, the value of the impounded vehicle was less than the required 30%, and even if it were sufficient, the statutory requirement is for payment, not asset impoundment. The tribunal found that the applicant had not paid the re…

Source excerpt

• Tax Appeals Tribunal Procedure
• Payment Of 30 Percent Tax
• Preliminary Objection
• Capital Gains Tax
• Asset Impoundment

The Registered Trustees of Freemansons Hall v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 51 of 2019)

The Registered Trustees of Freemansons Hall v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 51 of 2019) [2021] UGTAT 28 (29 July 2021)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 51 of 2019

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Mugerwa, Panel Member, Katwe

The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that URA’s assessment was invalid because it failed to revoke a binding private ruling before taxing the sale, and it also miscomputed the gain.

• Capital Gains Tax
• Private Ruling Binding Effect
• Tax Assessment Computation
• Business Asset Definition
• Tax Exemption
• Procedural Requirements

Registered Trustees of Free Masons v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 51 of 2019)

Registered Trustees of Free Masons v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 51 of 2019) [2021] UGTAT 20 (29 July 2021)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 51 of 2019

Judges

Katwe, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was bound by an unrevoked private ruling and that the capital gains assessment was wrongly computed.

• Capital Gains Tax
• Private Ruling Binding Effect
• Tax Assessment Computation
• Business Asset Definition
• Tax Exemption
• Procedural Objection

Uganda Revenue Authority v Kasai Plascon (Application No. TAT 146 of 2020)

Uganda Revenue Authority v Kasai Plascon (Application No. TAT 146 of 2020) [2020] UGTAT 27 (11 September 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 146 of 2020

Judges

Katwe, Panel Member, Akabway, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that while amendments to pleadings, including counterclaims, are generally permitted to determine the real questions in controversy, such amendments must not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party or to third parties not before the Tribunal. In this case, the applicant sought to amend its Statement of Reasons to introduce a counterclaim for taxes allegedly due from the respondent as a withholding agent in a share sale. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not served any tax assessment on the respondent or the selling shareholders, which is a prerequisi…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Counterclaims
• Withholding Tax
• Capital Gains Tax
• Tax Assessment Procedure

Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Commissioner General URA (HCCS 259 of 2014)

Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Commissioner General URA (HCCS 259 of 2014) [2017] UGCommC 54 (6 April 2017)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCCS 259 of 2014

The court found that the Agency Notice issued by the Defendant was invalid because it was issued simultaneously with the tax assessment, contrary to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must be given a 45-day window to object to an assessment before an Agency Notice can be lawfully issued. The Defendant failed to prove proper service of the assessment notice on the taxpayer, and the purported service through an agent at an address no longer associated with the taxpayer was insufficient. The Plaintiff was not liable for the tax because the delay in executing the Agency Notice was caused b…

Source excerpt

• Agency Notices
• Tax Assessment Procedure
• Third Party Liability
• Service Of Process
• Capital Gains Tax
• Vat

Ketan Morjaria & Raji v The Commissioner General URA

Ketan Morjaria & Raji v The Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 628 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 208 (27 January 2011)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 628 of 2010

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, as there was a genuine legal controversy regarding whether the capital gain from the sale of shares was exempt from tax under the Income Tax Act prior to 1 July 2010. The court held that the suit was neither frivolous nor vexatious and merited judicial consideration. However, the court doubted whether irreparable harm would result from enforcement of the assessment, as any overpaid tax could be refunded with interest. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to maintain the status quo pending resolution…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Assessment
• Capital Gains Tax
• Temporary Injunctions
• Parallel Proceedings
• Tax Exemptions