Apony Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application TAT 80 of 2021)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that Aponye Uganda Limited is a member of a group with common underlying ownership and therefore its deductible interest expense is limited to 30% of EBITDA under section 25(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's interpretation that 'trusts by an individual' is an indivisible term, holding instead that 'trusts' should be read separately as one of the interposed entities through which underlying ownership may be held. The application was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant liable to pay the assessed tax of Shs. 641,012,201
Facts
Aponye Uganda Limited, a company engaged in commodity trading and transport services, obtained loans from several banks and claimed interest expenses of Shs. 3,927,919,280 for the year 2019. In April 2021, Uganda Revenue Authority conducted an audit and issued an assessment of Shs. 641,012,201, determining that the applicant had overstated its interest expense. URA found that the applicant was part of a group of companies with common underlying ownership, including Quality Polybags (U) Ltd, Aponye Transporters Ltd, and Aponye House Ltd, all sharing common shareholders Apollo Nyegamehe and Harold Byamugisha. Under section 25(3) of the Income Tax Act, a taxpayer who is a member of a group may only deduct interest up to 30% of EBITDA. The applicant objected, arguing it was wholly owned by individuals and not a member of any group. URA conducted a search at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau which confirmed common underlying ownership. The applicant's objection was disallowed and it brought this application to the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Issues
- Whether the applicant is liable to pay the tax assessed of Shs. 641,012,201.
- Whether the applicant is a member of a group within the meaning of section 25(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
- Whether the applicant's interest expense deduction should be limited to 30% of EBITDA under section 25(3) of the Income Tax Act.
- What is the proper interpretation of 'underlying ownership' under section 2(xxx) of the Income Tax Act.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
Cases cited (5)
- Rukikaire Mathew v Incafex (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
- Rwenzori Bottling Company Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application TAT 21 of 2021)
- Cape Brandy Syndicate v the Commissioner of Inland Revenue IRC (1921) KB 64
- St. Luke's Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr. Ltd v Bd of Cty. Commissioners of Gooding Cty., 149 Idaho 584
- Mafabi v Uganda (1969) 1 EA 179 (HCU)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.