Tribunal arbitrating K861m in disputed taxes

THE Tax Appeals Tribunal says it is currently arbitrating about K861 million in disputed taxes between various taxpayers and the Zambia Revenue Authority.
In a statement issued yesterday, the tribunal said the appeals included dissatisfactions with assessments following investigations, amounts payable on imported goods misclassifications and or false declarations among others.
“Since the enactment of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act No. 1 0f 2015 which came into force on 11th April, 2015, the Tribunal has received a total number of fourteen appeals out of which four have had rulings delivered, three are pursuing amicable settlement outside the tribunal and the rest are being actively pursued before the tribunal,” the statement read in part. “The appeals range from dissatisfactions with assessments following investigations/compliance audits, amounts payable on imported goods [misclassifications and/ or false declarations], property transfer tax payable upon selling real property or sale/change in shares and many others related to enforcement actions undertaken.”
The tribunal, which is mandated to adjudicate on all tax disputes arising from the collection of tax revenue, states that it was ready and fully equipped to assist the Zambian government in a scheme that will expeditiously and efficiently ensure timely collection of taxes.
Following the repeal of the Revenue Appeals Tribunal Act No. 11 of 1998 and its replacement with the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act No.1 of 2015, the tribunal was equipped with a wider capacity to deal with tax related disputes brought before it.
The capacity of the members to sit and hear the disputes has been enhanced. The qualifications of the tribunal chairperson have been upgraded to the same qualifications befitting a High Court Judge.
The tribunal has further been endowed with powers not only to enforce its orders and rulings but also to cite for contempt any disobeying party. Dissatisfactions arising from tribunal rulings have been made appealable to the Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *