Published by the FinTech Association of Kenya
PRECURSORSubscribe
Precursor Executive Classroom

Lecture 59 Β· Philip Kinisu met a KSh 133 million bank-deposit assessment with letters and loan papers, and cut it down.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 π‘ͺ𝒂𝒔𝒆 π‘Ήπ’π’π’Ž: KRA treated every unexplained deposit in Philip Kinisu's accounts as income and billed him KSh 133 million. The tribunal removed the time-barred year, the foreign dividends, the taxed retirement savings and a repaid loan, leaving only what his records could not explain.

By The Precursor Editorial Team, Tax and financial judgement Β· 5 min read,
Lecture 59 Β· Philip Kinisu met a KSh 133 million bank-deposit assessment with letters and loan papers, and cut it down.

Illustration: Precursor

The tax office compares the money that entered your bank accounts with the income you declared, treats the difference as hidden earnings, and bills you for it. Some of those deposits were never income at all, and the burden of showing which is yours.

Put yourself in the taxpayer's chair. When the authority treats every unexplained deposit as income, what turns a deposit back into something that is not taxed?

Continue reading

KES 49 for the rest of this piece.

About 954 more words, including the reasoning and what it means for operators. One payment, this piece, kept for good. No subscription and no renewal.

Sign in to buy for KES 49Google takes a moment, and your purchase stays with you.

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.

More on this system

Precursor Executive Classroom

Lecture 126 Β· A director kept meeting the taxman instead of appealing, and four years on the bill had only grown.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 π‘ͺ𝒂𝒔𝒆 π‘Ήπ’π’π’Ž: 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

Precursor Executive Classroom

Lecture 125 Β· A rice importer called cleaning and repacking manufacturing, and the court said packaging is not making.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 π‘ͺ𝒂𝒔𝒆 π‘Ήπ’π’π’Ž: 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

Precursor Executive Classroom

Lecture 124 Β· A contractor said the money was his clients', had no agreements to show it, and the assessment stood.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 π‘ͺ𝒂𝒔𝒆 π‘Ήπ’π’π’Ž: 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