Court dismisses mining company tax 1.8bn/- appeal

DODOMA: THE Court of Appeal has dismissed with costs the appeal lodged by Kaltire Mining Tire Group (Tanzania) Limited.

The firm, an international leader in mining tire management and supply, had challenged the corporate tax assessment on 1.8bn/- fraud losses it allegedly suffered.

Justices Rehema Kerefu, Patricia Fikirini and Benhajj Masoud ruled in favour of the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) after finding that grounds of appeal canvassed by the mining company, the appellant, do not raise a question of law which the Court has jurisdiction.

“We are in this respect persuaded that the grounds of appeal raised and the submissions made thereof concern factual issues which are a subject of the concurrent findings by the Board and Tribunal.

For the above reasons, we uphold the decision of the tribunal and dismiss the appeal with costs,” they ruled.

During hearing of the appeal, the appellant had complained that the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal erred in law by failing to evaluate the evidence on record vigorously and hold that the evidence submitted by the appellant did not meet the standard of proof under the law to justify fraud loss hence deductible.

They contended that the Tribunal erred in law by failure to evaluate the evidence on record and hold that the evidence submitted cannot be said to be proof that the appellant was defrauded by its employee, thus the losses cannot be deducted under section 39 (a) of the Income Tax Act, 2004.

ALSO READ: Court dismisses appeal against Airtel in 2.2bn/- case

In their judgment delivered in Dodoma recently, the justices pointed out that the Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions of parties, was of the view that the key issue in controversy was whether the appellant submitted sufficient proof for the fraud losses to qualify for deduction for tax purposes.

In particular, they observed, the Tribunal insisted that for losses to be deducted for tax purposes under section 39 (a) of the Income Tax Act, there must be evidence to justify that a person claiming for such deduction suffered loss in business during the year of income.

“The Tribunal, after considering a number of authorities, was settled correctly so in our view, that allegations of fraud must be strictly proved and that although the standard of proof may not be so heavy as to require proof beyond reasonable doubt; it is something more than a mere balance of probability applied in ordinary civil cases,” the justices said.

The justices pointed out that other than depicting a general complaint on the failure of the Tribunal to sufficiently evaluate and analyse the evidence, they were not shown by the appellant any misapprehension or misdirection amounting to a violation of a principle of law or procedure.

“In our considered view, the appellant is in this appeal simply inviting us to reconsider and re-examine the evidence in order to arrive at a different conclusion that will allow the alleged fraud losses to be deducted.

The justices said that as were not shown any misapprehension or misdirection in the evaluation of the evidence in relation to which a relevant principle of law or procedure was violated, they cannot accept the invitation as we are mindful of the express provisions of section 25 (2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act (the TRAA).