Wakilii

Latigo v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 88 of 2019)

Tribunal · [2021] UGTAT 26 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Tax Appeals Tribunal for reward as tax informer
Decision
Application allowed with award of partial reward to the informer

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 Tribunal held that an informer is entitled to a reward only for taxes recovered directly from information specified in the Tax Evaders Information Form. The majority found the applicant entitled to 10% of withholding tax recovered for the period stated in the TIF, awarding Shs. 36,128,953.60. The dissenting member found both the compliance review and returns examination were part of one investigation prompted by the applicant's report, awarding Shs. 216,031,415.

Outcome

Application allowed with award of partial reward to the informer

Facts

The applicant, an accountant employed by Sogea Satom Limited from June 2014 to July 2018, reported tax evasion by the company to the respondent on 30 October 2016 via Tax Evaders Information Form No. 0683. The TIF specified withholding tax evasion for the period 2014-2016 estimated at Shs. 1,300,000,000. Following a compliance review, the respondent recovered Shs. 604,281,243 and paid the applicant Shs. 60,428,124 (10% reward). In September 2017, the respondent conducted a returns examination covering Income Tax, PAYE, WHT, and VAT for 2015-2016, recovering an additional Shs. 3,698,326,239. The applicant claimed entitlement to 10% of the additional recovery, arguing it resulted from his information. The respondent contended the returns examination was independent of the applicant's information.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a reward of Shs. 187,328,733 (or Shs. 369,832,623 per dissenting member) in respect of additional tax recovered by the respondent.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant awarded Shs. 36,128,953.60 being the balance of 10% of Shs. 965,570,779 (WHT recovered) (majority ruling).
  • Applicant awarded costs of the application (majority ruling).
  • Applicant awarded Shs. 216,031,415 being 10% of Shs. 2,160,031,415 (additional principal tax collected) (dissenting ruling).
  • Applicant awarded costs of the application (dissenting ruling).

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Scope of Entitlement — Tax Evaders Information Form as Binding Document
The Tax Evaders Information Form is the conclusive evidence of proof that binds the revenue authority with the informant, and any information given without first filing the TIF is deemed whistleblower information for which the authority is under no duty to pay a reward.
Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Limitation to Information Specified in TIF
An informer's reward relates only to recovery of tax that directly relates to information provided in the Tax Evaders Information Form, and the informer cannot recover in respect of additional tax not indicated in the form even if discovered during subsequent audits.
Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Independent Investigations and Informer Entitlement
Where the revenue authority uses its own skill and expertise to recover additional taxes through independent return examinations beyond the scope of information provided by an informer, the informer is not entitled to a reward for such additional recoveries.
Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Burden of Proof
It is not enough merely to show that an informer gave information and that taxes were recovered; there must be direct evidence to show that the information given led to recovery of the specific taxes claimed, as the revenue authority receives payments regularly from various sources.
Tax Law — Informer Rewards — Self-Disclosure by Taxpayer
An informer cannot be rewarded on taxes recovered through a taxpayer's voluntary self-declaration, as such recovery is an independent act of disclosure and not directly attributable to the informer's information.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Edward Turyarugayo v URA
  • Edward Turyarukayo v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2013)
  • KB Serial No. O567 v Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Mutagala Vincent v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 274 of 2008)
  • David Olaka v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 92 of 2014)
  • Ahamya Sam v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 487 of 2007)
  • John Musisi v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 27 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Latigo v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 88 of 2019) 2021 UGTAT 26 (11 November 2021)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.