Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) conducted a tax audit of Coca-Cola Kwanza Limited for the 2013–2014 tax years and issued a withholding tax assessment of TZS 158,756,970.33, together with interest.
TRA maintained that Coca-Cola had failed to withhold tax on:
consultancy service fees; and
private security service fees.
Coca-Cola objected, arguing that:
consultancy fees paid between January and June 2013 were not subject to withholding tax because the relevant withholding tax regime had not yet become applicable to those payments; and
private security services did not constitute "services of an independent business character" under Practice Note No. 1 of 2013 and therefore were not subject to withholding tax.
During the objection proceedings, Coca-Cola submitted accounting records, SAP system extracts, invoices, trial balances and audited financial statements to demonstrate that TRA's computation wrongly included non-taxable payments.
The Tax Revenue Appeals Board allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment. The Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision, prompting TRA to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Whether private security services fell within the phrase "other such services of an independent business character" under section 83(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as clarified by Practice Note No. 1 of 2013, thereby attracting withholding tax.
Whether Coca-Cola had produced sufficient evidence to establish that TRA's assessment on consultancy service fees improperly included payments made before July 2013.
Whether TRA was entitled to charge interest when the principal tax assessment was disputed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed TRA's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision.
The Court held that:
Private security services were not subject to withholding tax under section 83(1)(c) as it existed before the 2016 amendment. Applying the ejusdem generis rule, the Court held that the expression "other such services of an independent business character" was confined to services similar to professional and consultancy services, and did not extend to security services. The subsequent statutory amendment in 2016 expressly including security services reinforced this interpretation.
Coca-Cola had produced sufficient documentary evidence—including SAP records, invoices, ledger extracts, trial balances and audited financial statements—to demonstrate that TRA's assessment improperly included consultancy payments made during the period when withholding tax was not chargeable. The Board and Tribunal had properly evaluated that evidence, and there was no legal basis for disturbing their concurrent findings.
Since the principal withholding tax assessment was erroneous, the interest assessment also could not stand, because interest is merely incidental to a valid principal tax liability.
The decision is significant because it:
clarifies that before the 2016 amendment, private security services were outside the scope of withholding tax under section 83(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act;
confirms that Practice Notes, although not binding on courts, are important interpretative aids and are binding on tax officers in administering tax laws; and
reinforces that a taxpayer can successfully challenge a tax assessment through credible accounting records and that an interest assessment cannot survive where the underlying tax assessment is invalid.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.