Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2020
Beach Petroleum (Tanzania) Limited was a petroleum and gas exploration company operating in Tanzania under a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with the Government. The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) conducted an audit covering the years of income 2014–2016, with the dispute principally concerning the 2015 year of income.
Beach Petroleum had claimed depreciation allowances in respect of expenditure/assets associated with its petroleum exploration activities. TRA disallowed the depreciation on the ground that the petroleum project was still at the pre-production stage and the relevant assets had not yet been employed in the production of income.
TRA consequently issued an agency notice through the company's bank for TZS 6,403,621,783.90, comprising TZS 5,249,775,600.00 principal tax and TZS 1,153,846,183.90 interest.
Beach Petroleum challenged the assessment before the Tax Revenue Appeals Board. The Board found in favour of Beach Petroleum, holding that the nature of petroleum exploration justified the depreciation claim even though the project had not reached production. The Tribunal subsequently upheld that position and ordered, among other things, refund of the amount recovered through the agency notice.
TRA appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court ultimately considered two principal issues:
Whether the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal correctly interpreted section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 2004 together with paragraph 1(3) of the Third Schedule, and thereby correctly held that Beach Petroleum was entitled to depreciation allowance notwithstanding that the petroleum project was still at the pre-production stage.
Whether the Tribunal erred by disregarding a binding decision of the Court of Appeal, particularly Panafrican Energy Tanzania Ltd v Commissioner General, TRA, concerning the interpretation of section 17 and paragraph 1(3) of the Third Schedule.
The third ground, concerning disagreement between Tribunal members without reasons contrary to section 20 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, was abandoned by TRA during submissions.
The Court of Appeal allowed TRA's appeal and reversed the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal.
The Court held that depreciation allowance under section 17 requires two fundamental conditions:
The depreciable asset must be owned by the taxpayer; and
The asset must have been employed wholly and exclusively in the production of the taxpayer's income during the relevant year.
The Court rejected the Tribunal's interpretation that paragraph 1(3) of the Third Schedule created an exception allowing depreciation where the relevant asset had not yet been used in producing income.
The Court explained that paragraph 1(3) provides special treatment for expenditure incurred in natural-resource prospecting, exploration and development by treating that expenditure as though it had been incurred in securing the acquisition of an asset used in producing income. However, it does not dispense with the requirement that the asset must actually be used in the production of income.
The Court expressly relied on its earlier decision in Panafrican Energy Tanzania Ltd v Commissioner General, TRA, holding that the Tribunal had been wrong to regard that authority as irrelevant.
The Court therefore concluded:
The depreciation claim was properly disallowed because the assets had not yet been used in the production of income.
TRA was consequently entitled to recover TZS 6,403,621,783.90, including the interest of TZS 1,153,846,183.90, under the agency notice. Costs were awarded against Beach Petroleum.
The most important principle is that ownership alone is insufficient for depreciation purposes. Section 17 requires the asset to be both owned and actually employed in producing the relevant income.
For companies in the petroleum and extractive sectors, expenditure incurred during exploration cannot automatically generate depreciation merely because the expenditure is connected to a future income-producing project.
The Court distinguished between qualifying capital expenditure and the conditions for claiming depreciation.
Paragraph 1(3) gives special tax treatment to exploration and development expenditure by treating it as expenditure incurred in securing an asset. It does not, however, eliminate the statutory requirement that the asset must ultimately be used in production.
A particularly important statutory-interpretation principle emerges from the judgment.
The Court held that although a Schedule forms part of an Act, a provision in a Schedule that qualifies a substantive section cannot override the parent section. The Court expressly rejected the argument that paragraph 1(3) could override the requirements established by section 17.
The case is also important on precedent. The Tribunal could not simply declare a Court of Appeal authority "irrelevant" without properly distinguishing it.
The Court considered the Tribunal's treatment of Panafrican Energy Tanzania Ltd v Commissioner General, TRA to be misguided because Panafrican Energy had already interpreted the same statutory provisions.
The judgment has substantial practical implications for upstream petroleum companies, particularly companies incurring significant exploration expenditure before commercial production begins.
It indicates that the tax treatment of exploration expenditure must be carefully separated into:
For exploration or development expenditure to qualify as capital expenditure its treatment as acquisition of an asset is tied to actual employment of the asset in production then it will be depreciation allowance.
The judgment therefore places considerable importance on the point at which the relevant asset becomes actually employed in income production.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.