When it rains, it pours

bigDog said:
I don't think so. This issue has been litigated and Keroche agreed to an out of court settlement. I'm very skeptical about Keroche claims.

There was a claim that some taxes were applied retrospectively. Taxes like laws cannot be applied retrospectively. Unless there was fraud and misrepresentation from the beginning.
Click to expand...



 
bigDog said:
I don't think so. This issue has been litigated and Keroche agreed to an out of court settlement. I'm very skeptical about Keroche claims.

There was a claim that some taxes were applied retrospectively. Taxes like laws cannot be applied retrospectively. Unless there was fraud and misrepresentation from the beginning.
Click to expand...
From what I have read and heard ni kama KRA hawatakii Keroche .Read the Twitter thread shared hapa juu .
 
bigDog said:
Why has Keroche LTD decided to fight this in the court of public opinion? The judiciary is fiercely independent from the executive. Why is Keroche unable to convince the courts that they have been wronged? Is it true that Keroche failed to remit VAT and excise duty?
Click to expand...
It's Me Scumbag said:
Would KRA claim that Keroche has not been remitting taxes as required if indeed Keriche has been doing so and there are records to support such remittances?
Click to expand...
What you are putting forth is layman argument. Let me try to break the issue down for you. I will use an abstract example.

Suppose the law says that for every litre of drink manufactured with an alcoholic content of between 10 and 20%, I pay 20% as excise duty. If below 10%, the rate becomes 10%. Then the same law says that if I manufacture fortified drinks, then the tax rate becomes 40%.
Now I manufacture a drink called Ulevi extra with a 30% alcoholic content. It sells well, but I realise that some customers would love a lower content. I therefore dilute this drink with water to become 5% alcohol and call it Ulevi Lite. I price the drink well below Ulevi Extra.

Now KRA argues that Ulevi Lite is a fortified drink and should attract a duty at 40%. I argue that it is a diluted version of Ulevi Extra since it did not undergo a separate manufacturing process, and therefore should be taxed as Ulevi Extra. KRA disagree. I argue that if it is manufactured, then it should fall under the category of below 10% alcohol and therefore attract 10% duty. KRA refuse and we are set to meet in court.
Then I get a nomination to run on UDA ticket. KRA comes and closes my factory the next day.
 
zapp_brannigan said:
From what I have read and heard ni kama KRA hawatakii Keroche .Read the Twitter thread shared hapa juu .
Click to expand...

Governments are very serious with tax compliance. Failing to remit excise duty and VAT are offenses punishable by huge fines and could be criminal under some circumstances. Wewe jaribu biashara bila kulipa VAT where it's mandatory ujue haujui.
 
Aviator said:
What you are putting forth is layman argument. Let me try to break the issue down for you. I will use an abstract example.

Suppose the law says that for every litre of drink manufactured with an alcoholic content of between 10 and 20%, I pay 20% as excise duty. If below 10%, the rate becomes 10%. Then the same law says that if I manufacture fortified drinks, then the tax rate becomes 40%.
Now I manufacture a drink called Ulevi extra with a 30% alcoholic content. It sells well, but I realise that some customers would love a lower content. I therefore dilute this drink with water to become 5% alcohol and call it Ulevi Lite. I price the drink well below Ulevi Extra.

Now KRA argues that Ulevi Lite is a fortified drink and should attract a duty at 40%. I argue that it is a diluted version of Ulevi Extra since it did not undergo a separate manufacturing process, and therefore should be taxed as Ulevi Extra. KRA disagree. I argue that if it is manufactured, then it should fall under the category of below 10% alcohol and therefore attract 10% duty. KRA refuse and we are set to meet in court.
Then I get a nomination to run on UDA ticket. KRA comes and closes my factory the next day.
Click to expand...

Why are you choosing to believe Keroche? They are an interested party! The most objective evidence to look at would be the settlement deed intered by both parties. Why hasn't it been made public?
 
bigDog said:
Governments are very serious with tax compliance. Failing to remit excise duty and VAT are offenses punishable by huge fines and could be criminal under some circumstances. Wewe jaribu biashara bila kulipa VAT where it's mandatory ujue haujui.
Click to expand...
Anyway kama unaamini KRA ni sawa .Let them do their work .Later tutajua ukweli .
 
bigDog said:
Why are you choosing to believe Keroche? They are an interested party! The most objective evidence to look at would be the settlement deed intered by both parties. Why hasn't it been made public?
Click to expand...
The matter has always been in the public domain.
The only failure by Keroche was the inability to pay the taxes agreed on after an out of court settlement. And this is very understandable considering that it coincided with the time the country shut down over coronavirus regulations.
 
Aviator said:
The matter has always been in the public domain.
The only failure by Keroche was the inability to pay the taxes agreed on after an out of court settlement. And this is very understandable considering that it coincided with the time the country shut down over coronavirus regulations.
Click to expand...

Have they said whey they were unable to remit VAT?
 
bigDog said:
Have they said whey they were unable to remit VAT?
Click to expand...
You really haven't followed the details of this drama.
Over the negotiated settlement, they said they were unable.
Then KRA opened another front. Interpreting inability as refusal. And nullifying the agreement.
 
Aviator said:
You really haven't followed the details of this drama.
Over the negotiated settlement, they said they were unable.
Then KRA opened another front. Interpreting inability as refusal. And nullifying the agreement.
Click to expand...


There’s that instance where they were willing to pay over a 24-month period but KRA was insisting on 6-months.
 
Aviator said:
You really haven't followed the details of this drama.
Over the negotiated settlement, they said they were unable.
Then KRA opened another front. Interpreting inability as refusal. And nullifying the agreement.
Click to expand...
Luther12 said:
There’s that instance where they were willing to pay over a 24-month period but KRA was insisting on 6-months.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here. VAT and excise duty are taxes you collect on behalf of the government BEFORE the goods leave your premises. Any sale of alcoholic drinks WITHOUT applyiny VAT and excise duty is against the law. Why has Keroche failed to meet these obligations?
 
bigDog said:
Let's be clear here. VAT and excise duty are taxes you collect on behalf of the government BEFORE the goods leave your premises. Any sale of alcoholic drinks WITHOUT applyiny VAT and excise duty is against the law. Why has Keroche failed to meet these obligations?
Click to expand...
VAT or Excise duty at what rate?
That is the whole contentious issue.
 
bigDog said:
Let's be clear here. VAT and excise duty are taxes you collect on behalf of the government BEFORE the goods leave your premises. Any sale of alcoholic drinks WITHOUT applyiny VAT and excise duty is against the law. Why has Keroche failed to meet these obligations?
Click to expand...
In the water biz, of which I am a major player, we are still arguing with KRA whether you pay these upon production, sale or collection. Bearing in mind that you have already got an excice bond
KRA wants us to pay immediately we put the water in the bottle. We argue this isn't practical since we don't even have that money coz we haven't sold.
 
Ngimanene na Muchere said:
Click to expand...

Quote from KRA reply:


The parties after amicably reviewing the issues in contention entered into 2 agreements on July 23, 2021, and On December 21, 2021, to settle the matter in full. Keroche was to apply for remission of penalties and interests upon full settlement of the outstanding principal tax liability.



The agreements were adopted as the judgments of the High Court on February 12, 2022. Keroche has not honoured the payment of instalments as per the agreements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top