Company Tax Residency in Kenya

Background of the Dispute

At the heart of the dispute was a tax assessment of Kshs. 1.79 Billion levied by the KRA on Naivas Kenya Ltd (NKL). NKL was declared the tax rep of GFI. 

This assessment arose from a share sale transaction involving GFI and Amethis Retail, another Mauritian company. The transaction involved GFI selling a 31.5% stake in Naivas International Ltd (NIL), a Mauritian entity that wholly owns NKL, for Kshs. 5.2 billion.

KRA sought to tax this gain as corporate tax in Kenya, arguing that since GFI’s real management and control were exercised in Kenya, the gains from the share sale were taxable as Kenyan-sourced income. GFI, through NKL, contested this claim, arguing that as a Mauritian entity, it should not be subject to Kenyan taxes. 

Timeline of Key Events:

• GFI incorporates in Mauritius

• GFI sells shares in Naivas International (NIL)

• KRA claims GFI is a tax resident in Kenya. Thus has to pay tax in Kenya.

This raised the billion shilling question: Is GFI a tax resident of Kenya? The determination of this issue would decide the fate of the tax assessment.

A Deeper Dive into the Issue of Tax Residency

The central issue in the case was whether GFI, despite its incorporation in Mauritius, was effectively managed and controlled from Kenya, making it a tax resident of Kenya. Let’s break down the arguments and analysis presented before the Tribunal in detail:

Arguments by Naivas Kenya Ltd

1. Incorporation and Global Business License in Mauritius:

• GFI is a Mauritian entity, incorporated under Mauritian law and holding a Global Business License (GBL). This license was presented as evidence of its status as a tax resident of Mauritius.

• NKL argued that GFI’s incorporation and licensing in Mauritius meant it should not be subject to Kenyan tax laws.

2. Lack of Business Operations in Kenya:

• GFI’s role was limited to being an investment holding company for NIL. It did not directly conduct any business operations in Kenya.

• NKL emphasized the separation of legal entities, arguing that Naivas Kenya Ltd was distinct from GFI and NIL, and thus the tax obligations should not be transferred to NKL.

3. Management by Mauritian Directors:

• GFI asserted that it complied with Mauritian regulations by appointing two Mauritian directors. It argued that this ensured that the management and control of GFI occurred in Mauritius.

• NKL contended that GFI’s key decisions were made in Mauritius, particularly during board meetings, thus reinforcing its claim to Mauritian tax residency.

Arguments by KRA

1. Real Management and Control in Kenya:

• KRA argued that GFI’s true management and control were exercised from Kenya, despite its formal registration in Mauritius.

• The Respondent pointed out that GFI’s majority directors were Kenyan residents, and that critical financial and strategic decisions were made by these directors from Kenya.

• The evidence showed that only the Kenyan directors could authorize transactions from GFI’s bank accounts, highlighting where the actual control lay.

2. Lack of Substance in Mauritius:

• KRA challenged GFI’s claim of Mauritian residency, pointing to the absence of physical premises, employees, or substantial activities in Mauritius.

• It characterized GFI’s presence in Mauritius as a “shell arrangement” designed to avoid taxation in Kenya, lacking real economic activity.

3. Case Law Precedents and Common Law Principles:

• KRA also relied on precedents such as De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd vs. Howe (1906), which established that tax residency is determined by where a company’s central management and control is exercised.

• KRA argued that in line with international best practices, the location of GFI’s high-level decision-making should determine its tax residency. Since these decisions were made in Kenya, GFI should be considered a resident of Kenya.

Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

After reviewing the arguments, the Tribunal embarked on a detailed analysis using principles from Kenyan tax law.

A company is a tax resident in Kenya if:

a) A company is incorporated under Kenyan law.
b) A company’s management and control of its affairs is conducted in Kenya.
c) A company has been declared as a resident in Kenya by the Minister.

What did the tribunal find out?

1. Interpretation of "Management and Control":

• The Tribunal acknowledged that the Kenyan Income Tax Act does not define "management and control," so it looked to common law for guidance.

• It adopted the principle that tax residency is tied to where strategic decisions are made and high-level management occurs, rather than the location of formal registration.

2. Reviewing Evidence of Control:

• The Tribunal scrutinized the minutes of board meetings and other records, finding that even when formal meetings were held in Mauritius, the decisions were driven by Kenyan directors.

• It noted that financial control, such as authorizing transactions, was exclusively in the hands of these Kenyan directors, making them the true controllers of GFI’s business affairs.

3. Assessment of Substantial Economic Presence:

• The Tribunal was not convinced by GFI’s arguments about its Mauritian residency. It agreed with KRA’s assertion that GFI lacked substantive operations in Mauritius.

• The absence of employees, offices, and other tangible activities in Mauritius led the Tribunal to conclude that GFI’s presence in Mauritius was more form than substance.

4. Conclusion: GFI as a Kenyan Tax Resident:

• Based on the evidence, the Tribunal determined that GFI was managed and controlled from Kenya, making it a tax resident under Kenyan law.

• This meant that the gains from the share sale between GFI and Amethis were subject to Kenyan corporate tax, justifying the KRA’s assessment of Kshs. 1.79 billion.

What This Case Teaches Us About Tax Residency in Kenya

This case offers critical lessons for companies with overseas operations and complex structures, particularly those leveraging holding companies in low-tax jurisdictions:

1. Substance Over Form Principle:

• The Tribunal’s decision emphasizes that substance matters more than the form when determining tax residency. A mere incorporation in an offshore jurisdiction does not shield a company from tax obligations if the real management and control are exercised elsewhere.

• For businesses with cross-border structures, it is vital to ensure that the operational substance in offshore jurisdictions matches the legal form to avoid challenges from tax authorities.

2. Role of Directors and Decision-Making:

• The case underlines the importance of who makes strategic decisions and where those decisions are made. Even if a company appoints directors in an offshore jurisdiction, the tax authority will look beyond these formalities to where real control is exercised.

• Companies should document and substantiate the location of decision-making and ensure that their directors in offshore jurisdictions play an active and genuine role in management.

3. KRA’s Aggressive Approach to Taxing Cross-Border Structures:

• This case signals a more assertive approach by the KRA in scrutinizing structures that involve foreign holding companies. The KRA’s application of the “management and control” test sets a precedent for other cases involving offshore entities.

• Businesses operating in Kenya should be prepared for detailed inquiries into their governance structures and ensure they maintain comprehensive records of their management activities.

In Conclusion

This case is a pivotal moment in the interpretation of tax residency in Kenya. The case illustrates how tax authorities can look beyond formalities to uncover the economic realities of a company’s operations.

As the global business environment becomes increasingly interconnected, understanding tax residency becomes not just a legal necessity but a strategic advantage. The Naivas case is a reminder that corporate tax planning must consider where key decisions are made, not just where a company is registered. For companies with cross-border operations, clarity on this issue can help avoid costly tax disputes.

Found this insightful? Subscribe for more tax insights, or contact us for personalized tax advice.