https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/271

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NO. E852 OF 2025** **PAMELA MWIKALI NGALI D KAINDI** **APPELLANT** **-VERSUS-** **COMMISSIONER OF DOMESTIC TAXES** **RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** **BACKGROUND** 1. The Appellant is an individual citizen of the Republic of Kenya who under the period of assessment was engaged on an intergovernmental secondment to the Judiciary of South Sudan, under terms coordinated by the Government of Kenya through the Kenya-South-Sudan Liaison Office (KESSULO). 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, Cap 469 of the Laws of Kenya (“the KRA Act”). Under Section 5(1) of the KRA 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 KRA 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 set out in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the KRA Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. The Respondent issued additional assessments on 2nd April 2024, related to Income Tax amounting to KShs. 3,028,599.02 inclusive of penalties and interest for the period 2016. 4. The Appellant filed an objection to the additional assessments on 24th April 2025. 5. On 20th June 2025, the Respondent issued an Objection Decision fully rejecting the Appellant’s objection and confirming the principal taxes due amounting to KShs. 1,561,333. 6. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, lodged the instant appeal. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appeal is premised on the Memorandum of Appeal dated 6th August 2025 and filed on the same date, raising the following grounds of appeal: 2. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact by assessing tax on the basis of presumed full-year income for the year 2016, despite clear evidence that the Appellant’s employment ceased in June 2016. The Respondent failed to consider that no income was earned, accrued, or received in the second half of the year. The imposition of tax on a non-existent income stream amounts to constructive taxation without lawful basis and violates core principles of fairness, accuracy, and legality in tax administration. 3. That the Respondent erred in law by ignoring the MOU dated 9th March 2007 between Kenya and South Sudan. Article XI (5) expressly states that remuneration paid to experts “shall be exempt from any form of taxation.” The decision contravenes this binding intergovernmental agreement. 4. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by disregarding the express terms of the Appellant’s contract of engagement, which clearly stated that the consolidated salary payable while on assignment in South Sudan was to be exempted from tax. The Respondent failed to give effect to this contractual term and to consider the nature of the Appellant’s posting under an intergovernmental arrangement, thereby rendering a decision that was factually and administratively flawed. 5. That the Respondent erred in law by departing from a consistent administrative practice without justification or notice. From 2011 to 2015, the Appellant’s income under identical international engagement terms was not subject to domestic taxation. The abrupt change in tax treatment in 2016, without any change in legal or contractual circumstances, violated the Appellant’s legitimate expectation of continuity and contravened the principle of fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution. 6. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by relying on erroneous legacy tax entries for the years 2012 to 2014, despite having received formal correction requests in March 2018. The Respondent failed to act upon those requests or to correct the taxpayer’s ledger and proceeded to issue an assessment based in part on demonstrably inaccurate records. The Appellant’s tax-exempt status and the termination of her employment in mid-2016, resulting in a procedurally unfair and factually flawed assessment. **APPELLANT’S CASE** 1. The Appellant’s case is also premised on the following documents filed before the Tribunal: a) The Appellant’s Statement of Facts dated and filed on 6th August 2025, together with the documents attached thereto; and 1. The Appellant was engaged on an intergovernmental secondment to the Judiciary of South Sudan between the year 2011 and June 2016, under terms coordinated by the Government of Kenya through the Kenya—South Sudan Liaison Office (KESSULO). 2. The Appellant's remuneration during this period was consistently treated as tax-exempt, in line with her contracts of employment, the applicable administrative practice by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), and the bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Kenya and the Government of South Sudan dated 9th March 2007. 3. She argued that throughout her engagement from 2011 to 2015, no domestic tax was assessed or demanded by the KRA, and tax returns filed during this period reflected either nil balances or credits. 4. In June 2016, the Appellant's employment came to an end. Her final salary was paid by RTGS as confirmed by payment records. She ceased to earn any income for the remainder of the 2016 year of income. 5. In 2018, the Appellant applied for a Tax Compliance Certificate, which was denied. This was the first time the Appellant became aware of any alleged outstanding tax liabilities. Her auditors, M/s Mokua Onwonga & Company responded to the denial by confirming that, to their knowledge, there were no unpaid taxes. 6. She averred that several engagements and follow-up meetings were held with officers at the Mombasa KRA office, but the tax demands remained unsubstantiated and varied depending on the officer involved. It was not until 2024 that the Appellant received clarity on the basis of the tax assessment, which was alleged to relate to the 2016 year of income. 7. She further averred that the assessment for 2016 was based on presumed full-year income, despite the Appellant only earning income from January to June 2016. The Appellant's tax return for 2016, filed by her tax agents, even reflected a credit balance. 8. In addition to the erroneous presumption of full-year income, the Appellant's tax ledger also reflected disputed entries for the years 2012 to 2014. These entries had been formally contested in writing by her auditors in a letter dated 26th March 2018 addressed to the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes. 9. Despite repeated written and oral requests, the Appellant has been unable to obtain further documentary support from KESSULO due to the realignment of its mandate following the cessation of Kenya's support to the South Sudan government. 10. The Appellant maintained that her income during the relevant period was tax-exempt by virtue of the government-to-government arrangement, and that if any error occurred in the tax returns (such as misidentifying the Judicial Service Commission as her employer), it was without her knowledge and should have been rectified once raised. 11. The Appellant objected to the assessment on the grounds that it was based on: * A mischaracterisation of her income * A disregard for the nature and duration of her contract * Legacy administrative errors that the Commissioner has failed to correct despite prior notification. 1. The Appellant contended that she shall rely on the following documents at the hearing: 1. Objection Decision dated 20th June 2025. 2. Tax returns for the year 2015 3. Tax returns for year 2016 4. Letter from TSO-Head, Mombasa South dated 28th January 2025. 5. Reply Letter to TSO-Head, Mombasa south dated 15th April 2025. 6. Notice by KRA dated 2nd April 2025 7. Copy of MOU between Government of Kenya and South Sudan 8. Contract of Employment for year 2016. 9. Letter by Mokua Onwonga to Commissioner for Domestic Taxes dated 26th March 2018 10. Copy of RTGS salary payment for June 2016 11. Notice of Objection dated 17th April 2025 12. Further Grounds of Objection dated 5th June 2025 13. Any further correspondence between the Appellant and KRA relating to the assessment dispute **Appellant’s prayers** 1. The Appellant prayed that the Tribunal finds that: 2. This Appeal be allowed. 3. The assessment issued by the Respondent be annulled in its entirety. 4. The Appellant's objection to the Tax decision be upheld. 5. The cost of this Appeal be borne by the Respondent. 6. Such other orders as the Tribunal may deem fit and just. 7. That the demand notice dated 2nd April 2025 be withdrawn. **RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. The Respondent’s case is premised on the following documents filed before the Tribunal: a) The Respondent’s Statement of Facts dated 16th Jan 2026 and filed on 21st January 2026, together with the documents attached thereto; and b) The Respondent’s Written Submissions dated 15th May 2026 and filed on 17th May 2026 1. The Respondent refuted every allegation by the Appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts. 2. The Respondent averred that it considered all the available information from the documents availed by the Appellant and its findings were limited to the information available during the review and verification. 3. The Respondent averred that the Appellant’s income did not qualify for exemption under Paragraph 11 of the First Schedule to the ITA, as the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Planning did not certify the income being exempt as required under the provision. 4. The Respondent argued that the Appellant’s income was taxable within the territory of Kenya as part of the MoU signed on 9th March 2007 by the Government of Kenya (GoK) and Government of South Sudan (GOSS) on Technical Assistance / Cooperation in Training and Capacity Building and the Agreement on Technical, Economic and Cultural Co-operation between the GOK and the GOSS ("the Agreement") signed in 2006. 5. It stated that Section 3 (1) of the Income Tax Act imposes tax to be charged for each year of income upon all the income of a person, whether resident or nonresident, which accrued in or was derived from Kenya. At the period of assessment in 2016, the Taxpayer was earning salary from contract based on the above stated agreement. 6. The Respondent contended that Article XI (1) of the MOU states, *“The remuneration paid to the experts or consultants while in the territory of the Receiving Party, shall be exempt from any form of taxation in the territory of the Receiving Party"*. As per MOU, the Receiving Party was South Sudan, and it did not exempt the remuneration of the consultants from taxes in Kenya. 7. It argued that the GoK, Office of the Presidency drew up an offer by way of a contract containing the terms and conditions of the Appellant’s engagement. Clause 3 of the contract of engagement for the period 1st January to 30th June 2016 clearly stated that consolidated salary shall be exempted from tax while working in South Sudan. 8. That further, Section 13(1) to the Income Tax Act, Cap 470 (ITA) provides for tax exemption under the First Schedule to the Act. Paragraph 11 of the First Schedule to the ITA provides for exemption of – *The income of a person from a management or professional* *fee, royalty or interest when the Cabinet Secretary certifies* *that it is required to be paid free of tax by the terms of an* *agreement to which the Government is a party either as* *principal or guarantor and that it is in the public interest that* *the income shall be exempt from tax.* 1. The Respondent argued that the burden of proof that the tax decision is incorrect in on the Appellant as per the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act. 2. Further, Section 24(2) of the Tax Procedures Act states that Commissioner shall not be bound by a tax return or information provided by, or on behalf of, a taxpayer and the Commissioner may assess a taxpayer’s tax liability using any information available to the Commissioner. 3. The Respondent further averred that the Appellant was informed of the assessment and the objection decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 29 and Section 51(9) and (10)of the Tax Procedures Act. 4. The Respondent acted within the confines and provision of the law in issuing the tax and objection decisions. 5. The Respondent averred that the information relied upon in making the objection decision is that which is furnished by the Appellant as explained above. 6. Consequently, it argued that the Appellant failed to state clearly grounds upon which the Respondent denied access to information they furnished themselves. 7. The Respondent asserted that its Objection Decision clearly enumerated the grounds for each assessment after consideration of the documents availed by the Appellant. 8. The Respondent contended that it did not violate any provisions of the law, but rather issued decisions with thorough conscience of the laws and statutes governing taxes well as the bill of rights. **Respondents Submissions** 1. The Respondent filed its submissions dated 15th May 2026 and filed on 17th May 2026 where in, it reiterated its position in the objection decision and responded to the Memorandum of Appeal and statement of facts as follows: 2. **Whether the Commissioner erred by confirming Income Tax assessments amounting to Kshs. 1,561,133?** 3. The Respondent submitted that the government of Kenya (GOK), Office of the Presidency drew up an offer by way of a contract containing the terms and conditions of the Appellant’s engagement. Clause 3 of the contract of engagement for the period 1st January to 30th June 2016 clearly stated that consolidated salary shall be exempted from tax while working in South Sudan. 4. The Respondent further submitted that, Section 13(1) to the Income Tax Act, Cap 470 (ITA) provides for tax exemption under the First Schedule to the Act. Paragraph 11 of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act provides for exemption of -; “The income of a person from a management or professional fee, royalty or *interest when the Cabinet Secretary certifies that it is required to be paid free of tax by the terms of an agreement to which the Government is a party either as principal or guarantor and that it is in the public interest that the income shall be exempt from tax.”* 1. On the question that the Appellant expected legitimate expectation, the Respondent relied on the case of that **CCK & 5 others v Royal Media Services**to submit that it cannot be used against the law but protects individuals from arbitrary policy changes. 2. It further relied on **Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2015: Kenya Revenue Authority & Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Vs. Republic (Ex parte) Kenya Nut Company Limited,** where the court held that legitimate expectation can only operate within the confines of the law and it can only be legitimate if founded in the law. 3. **Whether the Appellant herein discharged their burden of proof?** 4. The Respondent submits that the Appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 to the extent that it did not provide documentation and evidence to counter the additional assessment but rather what they provided confirmed the accuracy of the Commissioner’s assessment. It relied on the case of **Alfred Kioko Muteti vs. Timothy Miheso & another [2015] eKLR** to submit the need to provide evidence in discharging the burden of proof. 5. The Respondent further relied on the following cases: 6. **Mulheim v Commissioner of taxation (2013) FCAFC 115** 7. **Mugo v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E918 of 2024)[2025] KETAT 374 (KLR) (Appeals) (9 May 2025)** 8. **Katambo v Attorney General & another (Petition E532 of 2022) [2023] KEHC19949 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (30June 2023) (Judgment)** **Respondent’s prayers** 1. The Respondent prayed that this Honourable Tribunal finds as follows: a) That the Respondent’s objection decision be upheld. b) That the instant Appeal be dismissed with costs. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The Tribunal has considered the Parties’ pleadings, the documents filed, and the rival submissions, and is of the considered view that the grounds of appeal and the Parties’ contentions distil into the following issues for determination: 2. **Whether the Respondent erred in subjecting the Appellant’s remuneration earned while on secondment to the Judiciary of South Sudan to Tax.** 3. **Whether the Respondent correctly assessed the Appellant on income for the income earned in the year of income 2016.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. Having framed the issues for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse them as hereunder. **a) Whether the Respondent erred in subjecting the Appellant’s remuneration earned while on secondment to the Judiciary of South Sudan to Tax.** 1. The dispute principally revolves around whether the Appellant's salary earned pursuant to the Kenya-South Sudan Technical Assistance Programme constituted taxable income under the Income Tax Act or whether the same enjoyed exemption by virtue of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of Kenya and South Sudan together with the Appellant's contract of employment. 2. The starting point in determining any tax dispute is the charging provision. Section 3(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that: *"Subject to, and in accordance with, this Act, a tax to be known as income tax shall be charged for each year of income upon all the income of a person, whether resident or non-resident, which accrued in or was derived from Kenya."* 1. Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act further provides as follows regarding taxation of employment income: - ***“5. (1) For the purposes of section 3(2)(a)(ii) of this Act, an amount paid to–*** ***(a) a person who is, or was at the time of the employment or when the services were rendered, a resident person in respect of any employment or services rendered by him in Kenya or outside Keny****a; or* *(b) a non-resident person in respect of any employment with or services rendered to an employer who is resident in Kenya or the permanent establishment in Kenya of an employer who is not so resident,* ***shall be deemed to have accrued in or to have been derived from Kenya.”*** 1. The Tribunal notes that taxation can only arise where Parliament has expressly imposed a charge. Taxation is therefore purely a creature of statute, and neither the Commissioner nor the Courts may impose or exempt tax except as expressly provided by legislation. 2. This principle was succinctly stated in **Cape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64**, where Rowlatt J. stated: *“In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in and nothing is to be implied.”* 1. This principle has consistently been adopted by Kenyan Courts, including the Supreme Court in **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd [2020] eKLR**, where the Court reiterated that tax statutes must be interpreted strictly and that neither the Commissioner nor the Courts may impose tax where Parliament has not done so. 2. The Appellant contended that her remuneration was exempt from tax on three principal grounds. First, that Article XI of the Memorandum of Understanding exempted the remuneration from taxation. Secondly, that every contract executed between 2011 and 2016 expressly provided that the consolidated salary would be exempt from tax while working in South Sudan. Thirdly, that the Respondent itself consistently treated the income as exempt for five years. 3. The Respondent, on its part, argued that Article XI of the Memorandum only exempted the remuneration from taxation within the territory of the Receiving Party, namely the Republic of South Sudan, and that no exemption from Kenyan income tax existed. The Respondent further maintained that any exemption from tax under Kenyan law could only arise where the conditions stipulated under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act and Paragraph 11 of the First Schedule had been satisfied, including certification by the Cabinet Secretary. 4. The Tribunal has carefully examined Article XI of the Memorandum of Understanding. The provision expressly states that the remuneration paid to experts or consultants **"shall be exempt from any form of taxation in the territory of the Receiving Party."** The Tribunal notes that the Receiving Party under the Memorandum was the Republic of South Sudan. The language employed in the Memorandum is clear and unambiguous. It exempts taxation by the Receiving State only and does not purport to exempt the remuneration from taxation in the Sending State, namely Kenya. 5. Had the contracting States intended to exempt the remuneration from Kenyan income tax, nothing would have been easier than to expressly provide so. It is not the role of the Tribunal to imply terms into an international agreement or to enlarge the scope of an exemption beyond its express wording. In **Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR**, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts cannot read into legislation or legal instruments provisions that are absent or confer rights that were never intended by the makers of the instrument. 6. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Memorandum of Understanding did not create an exemption from Kenyan income tax. The exemption contemplated under Article XI was limited to taxation within South Sudan and cannot be construed as extending to Kenya. 7. The Tribunal now turns to consider whether the contractual clause providing that the Appellant's consolidated salary would be "exempt from tax while working in South Sudan" created a legal exemption from income tax under Kenyan law. 8. The Tribunal notes that Clause 3 of the Appellant's contract expressly stated that her consolidated salary "shall be exempted from tax while working in South Sudan." The question however, is whether parties to a contract, or even the government itself, may create a tax exemption outside the framework established by statute. The answer to that question is found in Article 210(1) of the Constitution provides that: *“No tax or licensing fee may be imposed, waived or varied except as provided by legislation”* 1. The constitutional position is reinforced by Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, which provides that exemptions from income tax are limited to those specifically provided for under the First Schedule to the Act or such exemptions as may be granted by the Cabinet Secretary through a Gazette Notice where the Act so permits. The Tribunal has carefully considered the Act and finds no provision granting a blanket exemption from employment income earned under the Kenya–South Sudan Technical Assistance Programme.. 2. The Court of Appeal in **Kenya Revenue Authority & Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Kenya Nut Company Limited [2017] eKLR**, held that legitimate expectation or administrative practice cannot defeat express statutory provisions. 3. The Tribunal therefore finds that although the Government, through the Appellant's contract of engagement, represented that her remuneration would be exempt from tax, such representation could not, of itself, create a statutory exemption where Parliament had not enacted one. 4. The Tribunal further notes that the Respondent relied heavily upon Paragraph 11 of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act which provides as follows: “*The income of a person from a management or professional fee, royalty or interest when the Cabinet Secretary certifies that it is required to be paid free of tax by the terms of an agreement to which the Government is a party either as principal or guarantor and that it is in the public interest that the income shall be exempt from tax.”* 1. Upon examining the Appellant's contract of engagement, the payment vouchers and other documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal, it is evident that the Appellant served as an employee under a contract of service and received remuneration in the nature of salary, which is income from employment. The remuneration was neither a management fee, professional fee, royalty nor interest within the meaning of Paragraph 11 of the First Schedule. 2. The Tribunal therefore agrees with the Appellant that paragraph 11 is inapplicable to employment income. However, the Tribunal hastens to observe that inapplicability of Paragraph 11 does not automatically render the Appellants remuneration exempt from taxation. It merely means that the exemption, if any, must be found elsewhere in the Income Tax Act. 3. The Tribunal has carefully examined the Income Tax Act and has not identified any provision exempting employment income earned by the Appellant under the Kenya-South Sudan Technical Assistance Programme. In tax law, exemptions are construed strictly. As was stated by the Supreme Court in **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd [2020] eKLR**, exemptions from tax must be expressly provided by statute and cannot be inferred by implication or equitable considerations. 4. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the existence of a statutory exemption applicable to her employment income. While the Tribunal appreciates that the Appellant may have accepted the assignment on the understanding that the remuneration would be tax exempt, such expectation cannot override the clear provisions of the Income Tax Act. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent did not err in law in subjecting the Appellant's remuneration earned during her secondment to the Judiciary of South Sudan. The Appellant has failed to establish that the remuneration fell within any statutory exemption recognised under Kenyan tax law. **b)** **Whether the Respondent correctly assessed the Appellant on income for the income earned in the year of income 2016.** 1. The Tribunal observes that, under Section 24(2) of the Tax Procedures Act, the Commissioner is not bound by a return or information furnished by or on behalf of a taxpayer and may assess the taxpayer’s liability using the information available. Further, Section 29 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to make a default assessment where a taxpayer has failed to submit a tax return as required by law. These powers must, however, be exercised reasonably and on the basis of the material available to the Commissioner. 2. The Appellant contended that her engagement in South Sudan came to an end in June 2016 and that she did not earn any employment income thereafter. In support of that contention, she relied on her contract of engagement and the RTGS payment record, which she stated demonstrated that her final salary was paid in June 2016. 3. The Tribunal has carefully examined the documentary evidence placed before it. Of particular relevance is the Appellant’s Income Tax Return Acknowledgement Receipt for the 2016 year of income. The return reflects gross employment income of KShs. 5,400,000 and a principal income tax liability of KShs. 1,561,133. The principal tax disclosed in the return corresponds with the amount subsequently confirmed by the Respondent in the Objection Decision. 4. The Tribunal has also examined the payment vouchers relating to the period January to May 2016. The vouchers show that the Appellant earned a monthly salary of KShs. 900,000. Applied over the six-month contractual period ending in June 2016, the monthly salary produces aggregate income of KShs. 5,400,000. That figure is consistent with the gross income declared by the Appellant in her own income tax return for the 2016 year of income. 5. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Respondent did not assess the Appellant on presumed income for the entire 2016 calendar year. Rather, the assessment was based on the gross income of KShs. 5,400,000 declared by the Appellant and supported by the salary payment records relating to her six-month engagement. The fact that the Appellant ceased employment in June 2016 does not, in the circumstances, displace the assessment because the amount assessed relates to the income earned during the period of her engagement. 6. Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act place upon the Appellant the burden of proving that the tax decision was incorrect or that the assessment was excessive. In **Kenya Revenue Authority v Man Diesel & Turbo SE, Kenya [2021] KEHC 13347 (KLR)**, the High Court held that a Commissioner’s assessment carries a presumption of correctness which remains until the taxpayer produces competent and relevant evidence demonstrating that the assessment is erroneous. The Court further observed that the taxpayer must establish, through evidence, both the underlying facts and the manner in which the application of the law to those facts renders the assessment excessive or incorrect. 7. Similarly, in **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Trical and Hard Limited [2022] KEHC 9927 (KLR)**, the High Court held that it is only competent and relevant evidence that is capable of displacing the presumption of correctness attaching to the Commissioner’s assessment. Where the evidence produced by the taxpayer does not contradict the assessment, the statutory burden remains undischarged. 8. In the present appeal, the Appellant’s own return and payment records do not demonstrate that the assessment was excessive or based on income that she did not earn. On the contrary, the documents corroborate the gross income and principal tax confirmed in the objection decision. The Appellant has therefore failed to discharge the burden imposed upon her under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. 9. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent correctly assessed the Appellant on the income earned during the 2016 year of income and properly confirmed the principal tax liability of KShs. 1,561,133 in the objection decision. **FINAL DECISION** 1. The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that the Tribunal finds the Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly proceeds to make the following Orders: 2. The Appeal be and is hereby dismissed 3. The Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 20th June 2025 be and is hereby upheld; 4. Each party to bear its own costs. 5. It is so ordered. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026.** **……………………………..….** **ROBERT M. MUTUMA** **CHAIRMAN** **……………………………… ……..….……..……………..** **JIMMY M. MALLA DR. TIMOTHY B. VIKIRU MEMBER MEMBER** **………………………………** **GLORIA A. OGAGA** **MEMBER**