Lecture 89 Β· Rupen Haria sold his shares a day before the rate trebled, and a late stamp could not move his tax to the new rate.
π»ππ πͺπππ πΉπππ: Haria sold his Harleys shares on 30 December 2022 and paid capital gains tax at 5 per cent. The registry stamped the transfer on 4 January, after the rate trebled to 15 per cent, and KRA billed him the difference. The High Court held the sale date, not the stamp, fixed the rate.
Illustration: Precursor
You sell your shares and are paid on the last business day of the year, and you work out your capital gains tax at the rate in force that day and pay it. The transfer document goes to the registry for stamping, and the registry stamps it a few days into the new year, by which time the rate has trebled. The tax authority bills you the difference.
Put yourself in the taxpayer's chair. When a new rate starts the day after your sale, but the stamp is dated later, which rate applies?
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