Julta Okiring’s Post

View profile for Julta Okiring, graphic

Tax Manager - Advisory

In the case of Hapag Llyod Kenya (Appellant) Vs Commissioner of domestic taxes (Respondent), the primary issue was whether the Appellant was entitled to claim an input VAT refund for zero-rated exported services. The Appellant argued it provided international shipping services under an Agency Agreement with Hapag Lloyd AG, asserting its independence and eligibility for VAT refunds. Relying on precedents and contractual terms, the Appellant contested the Respondent's rejection of its VAT claim. The Respondent, however, argued the Appellant was an agent and not entitled to claim input VAT, as the cost was borne by the principal. The Tribunal reviewed legal provisions, precedents, and the Agency Agreement and concluded that the Appellant acted as an agent, with costs—including VAT—borne by the principal. As such, the VAT refund claim rightfully belonged to Hapag Lloyd AG. IMO, the tribunal's point is valid and raises an important nuance in agency relationships and VAT compliance. While the Tribunal emphasized that VAT costs are borne by the principal in this case, it appears they did not fully consider whether the Appellant incurred separate costs directly related to its own income (i.e the 3% markup), such as audit fees, rent, or other overhead expenses. These costs, arguably distinct from those incurred on behalf of the principal, could potentially justify an input VAT claim by the Appellant.

Martin Kisuu

Owner, Taxwise Africa Consulting LLP

3w

Please clarify what constitutes "separate costs " as distinct from "expenses incurred on behalf of principal ". Thank you.

Like
Reply
John Okore

Data Science || Tax || Law Student || Mechanical Engineering || Novelist || Farmer || Mechanic ||

1mo

I agree with you. But also, the TAT has previously demonstrated boldness and moved suo moto on some matters. I see nothing in this matter that would have prevented them from doing so too. At the end of the day, an assessment is only just if it demands nothing more and nothing less than what is due from the taxpayer.

Like
Reply
andrew Obunga

Tax Consultant at Ronalds LLP , Nairobi

1mo

Very informative.On whether the appellant incurred input VAT, it's my option that the appellant didn't export any service, and such, the services were locally consumed by the principal.

Like
Reply
See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics