Tag Archives: EAST AFRICA COMMUNITY

KRA Vs Sendy: Kenya’s High Court VAT Precedent Threatens East Africa’s Gig Economy and Digital Commerce Growth.

Kenya’s High Court has recently delivered a Key decision in the battle over VAT in the ride-hailing/digital platform economy, that risks far-reaching ripple effects across East Africa’s digital commerce landscape. 

The landmark decision fundamentally reclassifies digital platforms as primary suppliers of gig-economy services for VAT purposes. This brings them fully into the VAT net and forces gig workers/entrepreneurs and small merchants into VAT compliance, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the growth, structure, and taxation of the East African digital economy.

The immediate tax implication is that we now have two VATable transactions in every ride or delivery processed through a digital platform operating a similar business model. These are;

Supply from motor vehicle owner to tech platform (input VAT for the platform)

Supply from tech platform to end consumer (output VAT to the tax authorities on full final consideration paid by the end consumer)

This new reality is problematic from a commercial point of view, taking into consideration the nature and level of tax sophistication of most African economies.

The other immediate implication is that thousands of gig-economy participants have been hit with a VAT compliance shock overnight, and the reason is simple; e-commerce platforms lose input VAT if they trade with non-compliant taxpayers. Exposure to commercial activities of too many Non-VAT Traders or informal taxpayers makes the platform’s business model commercially unviable and wipes out margins.

East Africa Trade: Uganda’s Tax Appeals Tribunal clarifies on EAC Intra-Trade VAT

The Tax Appeals Tribunal has delivered a landmark decision that strikes at the heart of URA’s aggressive enforcement and over-reach tendencies and restores the much-needed balance in the taxpayer-taxman relationship.

(TRADE WORTH ESTABLISHMENTS LTD V URA TAT APPLICATION 338 OF 2024)

In perhaps the strongest language yet from the Tribunal against the revenue body, TAT observed:

“On the whole, we find that the Respondent acted not only unlawfully but also with impunity and in total abuse of their powers and authority… Rather than doing this [refund VAT unlawfully collected], the Respondent orchestrated a phoney scheme to deny the Applicant their refund – a taxpayer, who is the very reason for the Respondent’s existence.”

Citing its earlier decision in Canaan Sites Limited v URA, TAT further emphasises the ethical and legal obligation of URA to return taxes not legally due: “Where the Respondent collects taxes that are not legally owed, it is generally expected to refund those amounts to the taxpayer… it has an ethical and legal obligation to return those funds to maintain trust in the tax system.”