https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/265

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NO. E1131 of 2025** **MT LONGONOT MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITED............................................APPELLANT** VS **COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL SERVICES & BOARD CO-ORDINATION....... RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a private limited company with its registered office in Naivasha and its principal activity is providing health and medical services. 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469 of Kenya’s Laws. Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all tax revenue. Further, under Section 5(2) of the Act with respect to the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Part 1 and 2 of the First Schedule to the Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. The Respondent audited the Appellant and issued a default assessment of Kshs. 3,678,934.71 for Income Tax Company for the year 2023 on 9th October 2024. 4. The Appellant lodged a late objection on 2nd May 2025 which was admitted by the by the Respondent on 15th May 2025. 5. The Respondent issued its objection decision on 30th June 2025 disallowing the objection. 6. Aggrieved by the Respondent's decision, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 9th October 2025. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appellant lodged a memorandum of appeal dated 13th October 2025 in which it raised the following grounds: 1. That the Respondent confirmed the assessments without due regard to all records, documents, explanations and information provided and thereby failed to appreciate all issues presented and raised by the Appellant. 2. That the Respondent issued a decision dated 30th June, 2025 for Income Tax-Resident Individual against the Applicant/Appellant, which the Applicant/Appellant contend lacks valid or lawful basis. The Applicant/Appellant disputes the accuracy of the decision totalling Kshs. 4,083,617.53 inclusive of penalty and interest. 3. That section 3 (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act defines income tax in relation to a business as any gains or profits from a business, for whatever period of time carried out. 4. That section 2 of the Income Tax Act defines "loss", in relation to gains or profits, to mean a loss computed in the same manner as gains or profits. 5. That section 15 of the Income Tax Act provides a list of deductions that qualify for deduction before assessment of tax payable on the income of a taxpayer. 6. That section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act No. 29 of 2015 provides for amended assessment of Tax by the Respondent, by making alterations or additions, from the available information and to the best of the Respondent's judgement for a reporting period. 7. That the Respondent has erred in fact and in law by assessing tax based on unsupported allegation that the Appellant had double claimed the expenses in her self-assessed returns, in violation of the express provisions of section 3 (2)(a)(i) read together with section 15 of the Income Tax Act which describes taxable income for a business as either gains or profits. 8. That the Respondent has erred in fact and in law by not including all allowable expenditure which is of revenue nature information of which was at the disposal of the Respondent and instead applied an arbitrary revenue percentage of thirty percent (30%) of the revenue as allowable expenses. 9. That the Respondent disallowance of the seventy percent (70%) as non-allowable is not backed by the operation of section 16 of the Income Tax Act or operation of any other written law. 10. That the Respondent erred in fact and in law by failing to use all the available information and judgement at his disposal in his default assessment of tax as provided for under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act, but instead selectively used unverified and unsupported assertions that would impose the biggest tax burden on the Appellant, instead of giving an objective review based on information and records at his disposal at the time of assessment. 11. That the default assessment of tax against the Appellant by the Respondent seems to classify the revenue expenditure on stock as capital, which has occasioned a great disadvantage upon the Appellant because the expenditure was integral to the core operations and revenue generating activities of the Appellant, and not the acquisition of assets and thus should not be disallowed. 12. That under the provisions of section 3 (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, and taking into account the allowable deductions under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, the Respondents assessment of the gains / profit in the periods under review are excessive and incorrect. **The Appellant’s Case** 1. In support of the appeal, the Appellant relied on its statement of facts dated 13th October, 2025. The Appellant did not file written submissions hence its case proceeded on the basis of its pleadings as filed. 2. The Appellant averred that the Respondent's assessments and actions were vindictive, in bad faith and ultra vires Article 47 (1) of the Kenya Constitution which avers that: *"(1) Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair."* That the actions of the Respondent from the issuance of the assessments to the extensive disallowing of the objection applications have been unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair. 3. That the High Court in the case of *Export Trading Company v Kenya Revenue Authority (2018) eKLR* noted that *"the importance of taxation and collection of taxes for any government cannot be gainsaid. It must however be noted that the process and the procedures leading to the collection of the said taxes must meet the relevant legal and constitutional thresholds in order to ensure the citizen's rights have not been violated. And or threatened with violation."* 4. The Appellant averred that it was issued with additional assessments for the period 2023 on 9th October, 2024 whereupon it objected and provided its grounds of objection, amendments required thereto and provided the relevant evidence to the Respondent in accordance with Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act. That the documents it provided included Audited financial statements, sales ledger and expenses ledger for the year 2023. 5. The Appellant averred that on 30th June 2025 the Respondent confirmed the assessment without regard to the evidence provided in support of its objection. The Appellant contended that the Respondent did not provide reasons for rejection of its objection. It relied on the case of ***Joseph Muriithi Ndirangu t/a Ndirangu Hardware v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2023) КЕНС 19357 (KLR)*** and the case of ***Local Productions Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeals Tribunal, Tax Appeal No. 50 of 2017),*** where the courts have affirmed that the Commissioner/Respondent is obligated to issue a detailed and reasoned tax decision so as to ensure compliance with the inherent right of taxpayers to enjoy the right to fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. 6. The Appellant stated further that, in the case of **Raghubar Mandal v the State of Bihar AIR 1952 PAT 235**, the court observed that: *" the officer is to make assessment to the best of his judgement against a person who is in default as regards supplying information. He must not act vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in his matter. He must make what honestly he believes to be a fair estimated of the proper figures of assessment."* 1. It was the Appellant’s contention that the face value of these assessments shows that the Respondent did not exercise its best judgment in the matter and acted vindictively in issuing these particular assessments. 2. The Appellant posited that it is a principle that the formula of taxable income is sales income less cost of goods sold; which the Appellant herein was not even accorded by the Respondent when it introduced these unsubstantiated sales in its accounts. That further, the Respondent arbitrarily disallowed expenses that were wholly and exclusively used in generating the respective business income and are allowable as provided under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Appellant averred that Section 15 of the Income Tax Act stipulates that: *"For the purpose of ascertaining the total income of a person for a year of income there shall, subject to section 16, be deducted all expenditure incurred in that year of income which is expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred by him in the production of that income, and where under section 27 any income of an accounting period ending on some day other than the last day of that year of income is, for the purpose of ascertaining total income for a year of income, taken to be income for a year of income, then the expenditure incurred during that period shall be treated as having been incurred during that year of income."* 1. That this section clearly explains that there cannot be business income without the costs associated in generating the said business income, in the case of ***Republic v Commissioner for Income Tax & another ex parte Stockman Rozen (k) Limited 2015*** ***eklr,*** Odunga J held that *"taxable income is that income that has accrued minus allowable deductions and that the said deductions from the accrued income must be those that are allowable under sections 15(1) and (2) of the Act which includes bad debts at section 15(2)(a). However, for these to be deductible (i) they must be bad or have become bad, (ii) must have been incurred in the production of gains or profits and (iii) must be estimated to the satisfaction of the commissioner to have been bad."* 1. The Appellant averred that it submitted evidence of cost of sales (purchases and expenses) to the Respondent for their review and examination. That the Respondent arbitrarily disallowed them on the basis that they appear to be personal not considering nature of the business. That the Respondent chose to ignore the valid expenses that were incurred and substantially proved which were used to generate business income for the Appellant. That this vindictive action of the Respondent affirms that its computation in deriving the taxable income is fatally defective. 2. The Appellant contended that the Respondent unlawfully and erroneously introduced unsubstantiated income in the Appellant's returns based on misconstrued workings. That it added unimaginable income to Appellant i-tax account without considering all other factors like similar businesses in the area. That the Respondent incorrectly determined that the payments made to locum doctors were subject to at thirty per cent (30%) yet locum doctors were independent contractors whose remuneration was paid based on invoices raised by the doctors. 3. The Appellant submitted that the decision made by the Respondent to issue the additional assessments thereof and further demand the taxes thereof as improper, unfair and unjust. That the Respondent's action to arbitrarily disallow the objection applications dated 2nd May, 2025 as impugned, unjust and improper. **Appellant’s prayers** 1. The Appellant prayed the Tribunal that: 2. The Appeal be allowed. 3. The allowable deductions incurred by the Appellant over the period under review and disallowed/not considered by the Respondent be declared to be of revenue in nature and hence deductible expense; 4. The Respondent's Objection decision dated 30th June 2025 be set aside in whole. 5. The Respondent's default assessment of tax for year 2023 be set aside. 6. The Respondent be stopped from demanding the tax, interest and penalties in respect of any issues relating to this matter; and 7. The Appellant be awarded costs for this Appeal. **THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. In response to the appeal, the Respondent relied on its Statement of facts dated 24th December 2025 and filed on even date as well as its written submissions dated and filed on 25th May 2026. 2. The Respondent averred that it audited the Appellant and assessed Kshs. 3,678,934.71 for Income Tax Company for the year 2023 on 9th October of 2024. 3. That the Income Tax company additional assessment for the year 2023 was issued based on estimates in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act after the Appellant failed to file its self-assessment returns for the year of income 2023 within the stipulated period contrary to the provision of Section 24 of the TPA. The Respondent averred that it allowed expenses at 60% of the assessed turnover. 4. That the Appellant lodged a late objection against the aforementioned assessment on 2nd May 2025 on grounds that the assessment was issued by the Respondent because it did not file year 2023 returns in the prescribed period and it had all the required documents to file the said returns as required. 5. The Respondent averred that vide a letter dated 15th May 2025 it allowed the Appellant to file its objection out of time and vide email dated 28th May 2025 requested it to provide all relevant documents in support of its grounds of objection. The requested documents included:- 1. Audited financial statements and trial balances. 2. General ledgers, sales ledgers, cost of sales and expenses ledgers/schedules for the year 2023. Bank statements for the year 2023. 3. Computations of taxes due for the periods under review and supporting documents. Annexed hereto and marked 6. The Respondent averred that the Appellant submitted the following documents in support of its grounds of objection: 1. Unsigned financial reports and accounts for Mt. Longonot medical services for the years ended 31st December 2023. 2. KCB account statements for Mt. Longonot medical services for the year 2023. 3. Carton box containing bulk hardcopy documentations comprising of cash requisition forms (imprest) for various expenses for various departments/persons, payment vouchers and assorted receipts. 7. The Respondent averred that it reviewed the Appellant's objection and documents submitted and issued an objection decision on 30th June 2025 disallowing the objection on the grounds that the Appellant failed to submit key relevant documentation including signed financial statements and self-assessed return which were key in verifying Appellant's contentions as: 1. The financial reports and accounts submitted in support of Appellant's objection grounds could not be relied upon in ascertaining the Appellant's taxable incomes as the same were unsigned and the auditor's report was missing. The same were also not accompanied by corresponding trial balances, general ledgers and / or relevant sales/purchases and \_expenses ledger. 2. The bulk hardcopy documentation submitted in support of the objection grounds comprising of cash requisition forms (imprest) for various expenses for various departments/ persons, payment vouchers and assorted receipts could not be verified as the same was not accompanied by relevant ledgers/ schedules/breakdown of the expenses. 3. No detailed tax computation/self-assessment return for the period was submitted for review and verification despite being requested for. 8. The Respondent averred that the Appellants contention that the Commissioner erred by confirming the assessments without due regard to all records, documents and information provided by the Taxpayer was a misrepresentation of the facts of the case. The Respondent asserted that it reviewed all records and documents submitted by the Appellant, the detailed findings of which are duly stated in the objection decision. 9. The Respondent further submitted that the assessments were confirmed after the documents submitted were found to be insufficient in disproving the Respondent's assessment as they were incomplete and unverifiable. The financial reports lacked auditor certification and were not accompanied by key documentation including trial balances, general ledgers, or tax computations. The bulk expense documentation submitted was also not supported by ledgers thus making it impossible for the Respondent to verify the nature and accuracy of the claimed expenses and by extension allowability of the same under the provisions of section 15 of the ITA. 10. The Respondent contended that the Appellant’s assertion that it erred by not including all allowable expenditure which is of revenue nature despite having information and instead applied an arbitrary 30% of the revenue as allowable expenses is inaccurate. The Respondent averred that it applied 60% as allowable expenditure and not 30% as alleged by Appellant as a reasonable estimate under Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act. 11. The Respondent posited that it is empowered to assess income based on available information where the Appellant fails to file returns nor provide the required documentation in support of its tax actual tax position. 12. The Respondent further averred that the assessment was confirmed at objection stage after the Appellant failed to submit verifiable documentation including duly signed audited financial statements, accompanied by corresponding trial balances, general ledgers and /or relevant sales/purchases and expenses ledgers) in support of their actual expenses. 13. The Respondent asserted that while issuing the default assessment, it allowed 60% hence disallowing 40% and not 70% of the expenses as alleged by the Appellant as a reasonable estimate under Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act. 14. The Respondent further submitted that while Section 16 of the Income Tax Act outlines categories of non-deductible expenses, it does not limit the Commissioner from estimating allowable expenses under Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act in cases where returns are not filed. That the disallowance of 40% was a consequence of applying 60% allowable expenses under Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act due to lack of records rather than a disallowance of claimed expenses for the period as no return for the period had been filed. 15. The Respondent contended that the said expenses could not be admitted during objection review as the same were not supported. 16. In response to the Appellant’s ground that the Commissioner erred by classifying the revenue expenditure on stock as capital instead of acquisition of assets. The Respondent submitted that this claim is incorrect. That the default assessment by the Respondent did not classify any of the revenue expenditure on stock as capital instead of acquisition of assets as the Respondent issued a default assessment under Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act after the Appellant had failed to file tax returns by due date nor provide required information on their taxes due. 17. The Respondent further submits that it applied a 60% expense ratio as a reasonable estimate of allowable expenses under Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act based on available information as no information on cost of sales nor expenses was available. 18. The Respondent further averred that the assessment was confirmed at objection stage after the Appellant failed to submit verifiable documentation including duly signed audited financial statements, accompanied by corresponding trial balances and cost of sales purchases ledgers in support of their actual expenses. 19. The Respondent submitted that Section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act provides that a Taxpayer bears the burden of proving that a tax assessment as issued by the Commissioner is erroneous or incorrect, more so where there are discrepancies in the Appellant’s returns, which are premised on a self-assessment regime. 20. That the evidentiary burden is on the Appellant to provide all relevant and sufficient tax records to assist the Respondent determine its tax liability as enjoined by Section 59 of the TPA which provides that: *“59 (1) For the purposes of obtaining full information in respect of the tax liability of any person or class of persons, or for any other purposes relating to a tax law, the Commissioner or an authorised officer may require any person, by notice in writing, to—* *produce for examination, at such time and place as may be specified in the notice, any documents (including in electronic format) that are in the person's custody or under the person's control relating to the tax liability of any person;* *furnish information relating to the tax liability of any person in the manner and by the time as specified in the notice; or* *attend, at the time and place specified in the notice, for the purpose of giving evidence in respect of any matter or transaction appearing to be relevant to the tax liability of any person.”* 1. The Respondent further relied on TAT NO. 48 of 2018 - **Joycott General Contractors Limited versus Kenya Revenue Authority,** where the Tribunal in dismissing the Appeal held as follows: - *“We find that the Appellant seems to forget that it bears the burden of proof, in law, to demonstrate to this Tribunal that the Respondent's assessment was wrong, especially with regards to the under declarations and variance in respect of VAT and income sales. On the contrary, the Appellant has not bothered to substantially traverse the assessment raised. All it has done is to make sweeping and expansive accusations without substantial support”* 1. The Respondent submitted that the issue of Taxpayer’s failing/ refusing/neglecting to provide relevant and competent documents in support of their objection to tax assessments has been canvassed severally in this Tribunal and the High Court. That the High Court in **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Trical and Hard Limited (Tax Appeal E146 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 9927 (KLR)** held at paragraph 26 that: - *“From the above, it is clear that the evidential burden of proof rests with the taxpayer to disprove the Commissioner and that once competent and relevant evidence is produced, then this burden now shifts to the Commissioner. I have emphasized and underlined ‘competence’ and ‘relevance’ because it is only evidence that meets these two tests that demolishes presumption of correctness and swings the burden to the Commissioner. This means that even if one avails evidence but then it is found that the same is incompetent or irrelevant, then the burden continues to remain with the tax payer.”* 1. The Respondent submitted that in the absence of the Appellant providing the requisite documentation to facilitate in the assessment and/or verification of the appropriate tax liability, the Respondent, empowered under Section 31(1) of the TPA used its best judgment in making the additional tax assessment of VAT amounting to Kshs. 1,956,485.18. 2. The Respondent submitted that this position was upheld in **TAT No. E796 of 2023: Acrowood Imports & Exports Limited–Vs- Commissioner of Domestic Taxes.** 3. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to adopt the above positions since the Appellant had failed to discharge its evidentiary burden. That in the case of **Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcements V Dr. Evans Kidero (2022) eKLR**, the Court stated that; *“The duty imposed on the taxpayer to keep records and the provisions on the burden of proof all go to support the Kenyan tax collection regime which is centred on a system of self- assessment. This system relies on the taxpayer making full and good faith disclosures in their tax declaration and affairs and hence empower the Commissioner to demand documents from time to time when investigating the affairs of a taxpayer. Whether the taxpayer has provided sufficient evidence to meet the threshold of proof required to discharge its burden must of course depend on the nature of the subject or transaction and the circumstances of the case bearing in mind the aforesaid duty placed on the taxpayer to keep records.”* 1. That this position was further upheld in the case of **Osho Drapers Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2022] eKLR** where the Court held that a Taxpayer has to produce documents to discharge of its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act. 2. It was the Respondent’s submission that the Appellant had failed to discharge its burden under Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. That the assessments therefore issued on Income Tax are justified and the Tribunal ought to uphold the same. **Respondent’s prayers** 1. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal: 2. Upholds the Respondent's objection decision dated 30th June 2025 confirming the demand for Kshs. 3,678,934.71. 3. Dismiss this Appeal with costs to the Respondent as the same is without merit. **ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The Tribunal identified the following issue for determination ***Whether the Respondent erred in confirming the taxes assessed upon the Appellant.*** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. The Tribunal proceeded to analyse the issue for determination as hereunder. 1. The Respondent audited the Appellant and issued default assessment of Kshs. 3,678,934.71 for Income Tax Company for the year 2023 upon noting that the Appellant had not filed its self-assessment returns. 2. It was the Appellant’s contention that Respondent's assessments and actions were vindictive, in bad faith and *ultra vires* Article 47 (1) of the Kenya Constitution. That the actions of the Respondent from the issuance of the assessments to the extensive disallowing of the objection applications were unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair. 3. The Appellant decried that it had not been afforded a fair hearing and that the Respondent ignored its grounds of objection, amendments required thereto and relevant evidence which it provided to the Respondent in accordance with Section 51 of the TPA. 4. The Appellant also contended that the Respondent confirmed the assessment without regard to the evidence provided in support of its objection and that the Respondent did not provide reasons for rejection of its objection. 5. The Respondent on its part stated that the Appellant was *vide* letter dated 15th May 2025 allowed to file its objection out of time and *vide* email dated 28th May 2025 requested to provide all relevant documents in support of its grounds of objection. 6. The Tribunal followed through the correspondence between the parties and noted that the Appellant had made a late objection application which was accepted by the Respondent, the Appellant was then required to provide documentation to aid in establishment of its tax position. 7. The impugned assessment being default assessments issued pursuant to Section 29 of the TPA, it was in the Appellant’s interest to seize the opportunity afforded to it to file its self-assessment returns so as to demonstrate what in its opinion was the correct tax position. Section 29 of the TPA empowers the Commissioner to issue default assessments it states: ***29. Default assessment*** *(1) Where a taxpayer has failed to submit a tax return for a reporting period in accordance with the provisions of a tax law, the Commissioner may, based on such information as may be available and to the best of his or her judgement, make an assessment (referred to as a "default assessment")* 1. The Respondent in its objection decision and statement of facts maintained that the Appellant failed to provide key relevant documentation including Signed financial statements and self-assessed returns which were key in verifying the Appellant's contentions. That the financial statements submitted in support of Appellant's objection grounds could not be relied upon in ascertaining the Appellant's taxable incomes as the same were unsigned and the auditor's report was missing. The same were also not accompanied by corresponding trial balances, general ledgers and / or relevant sales/purchases and \_expenses ledger 2. The Respondent also asserted that the hardcopy documentation submitted in support of the objection grounds comprising of cash requisition forms (imprest) for various expenses for various departments/ persons, payment vouchers and assorted receipts could not be verified as the same was not accompanied by relevant ledgers/ schedules/breakdown of the expenses. That no detailed tax computation/ self-assessment return for the period was submitted for review and verification despite being requested for. 3. The Tribunal noted that whereas the Appellant claimed that it provided all relevant documents and that the same were disregarded by the Respondent, it did not provide any evidence to show that it had indeed submitted the required documents to the Respondent, the Appellant has also not attached the said documents in support of its Appeal at the Tribunal. The Tribunal is therefore not able to authenticate the Appellant’s claim that it provided sufficient documents. 4. It is trite law that the burden of proof in tax cases rests with the taxpayer. Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 469A(TATA), state that the Appellant has a burden to prove that the Respondent’s decision was incorrect. The Sections state thus: ***Section 56(1) of the TPA-*** *“In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.”* ***Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act:*** *“In any proceeding before the Tribunal the Appellant has the burden of proving-* 1. *where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; or* 2. *in any other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.”* 3. Tribunal’s perusal of the Appellant’s record of Appeal shows that while the Appellant made assertions that it provided all relevant documents to support its objection, it only attached the following documents to the Appeal: 1. Email correspondence with the Respondent during the objection stage 2. The letter for extension of time to file objection out of time 3. The objection decision 4. Clearly, the above listed documents could in no way aid the Appellant to discharge its burden of proofing that the Respondent’s assessments were excessive erroneous or incorrect. The Respondent’s assessments enjoy the presumption of correctness unless the Appellant provides evidence to prove otherwise. The Tribunal finds guidance in the case of **Kenya Revenue Authority v Maluki Kitili Mwendwa [2021] eKLR** where Mativo J. held that: *“Regarding the presumption of correctness, the most significant justification for placing the burden of proof on the tax payer is the practical consideration that the Commissioner cannot sustain the burden because he does not possess the needed evidence. Under the system of self-reporting tax liability, the taxpayer possesses the evidence relevant to the determination of tax liability. It is simply fair to place the burden of persuasion on the taxpayer, given that he knows the facts relating to his liability, because the commissioner must rely on circumstantial evidence, most of it coming from the taxpayer and the taxpayer's records. The taxpayer must present a minimum amount of information necessary to support his position. This safety valve seems to place the burden of production on the taxpayer without relieving the Commissioner of the overall burden of proof. The tax payers evidence must meet this minimum threshold.”* 1. This Tribunal has pronounced itself numerously on the initial burden of proof which rests upon the Appellant in tax cases, this Tribunal in **Deep Forest Hardware Limited v Commissioner of Investigation and Enforcement (Tax Appeal E291 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 702 (KLR)** stated as follows**:** ***‘****‘section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act squarely place**the burden of proof upon a taxpayer to discredit any tax assessment or decision.’’* 1. Further, in **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Metoxide Africa Limited (Tax Appeal E121 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14613 (KLR)**the Court emphasised that the burden is upon the taxpayer to prove that the Respondent’s decision is incorrect. 2. Consequently, the Appellant did not move this Tribunal to find that the Respondent erred in confirming the taxes assessed upon the Appellant. **FINAL DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal lacks merit and makes the following orders: - 1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. The objection decision dated 30th June 2025 be and is hereby upheld; and 3. Each party to bear its own cost. 2. It is so ordered. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026.** **……………………………..….** **ROBERT M. MUTUMA** **CHAIRMAN** **……………………………… ……..….……..……………..** **JIMMY M. MALLA. GLORIA A. OGAGA MEMBER MEMBER** **………………………………** **DR. TIMOTHY B. VIKIRU** **MEMBER**