A Permanent Establishment (PE) in Kenya of MAN Diesel and Turbo SE Germany (MAN) entered into a consortium with a firm called MPG Services to engineer, procure and construct an 87 MW generating capacity thermal power plant on behalf of Thika Power Ltd. The role of MAN’s Kenyan PE in the project was mobilization, engineering and design, reservation of the diesel sets, and steam turbine and other start-up costs associated with its part of the works which included supervision of the assembly and installation of engines and commissioning the engines. MAN Germany was to provide for the materials up to the port of export and the PE was to assist in the onshore part which included supervision of the assembly and installation work as well as commissioning the work but did not include supply of equipment. In 2015, the tax authorities initiated an audit which resulted in a final tax assessment issued in 2017. According to the assessment MAN’s Kenyan PE owed additional taxes on undeclared income (income resulting from the imports of Equipment), penalty and interest in an amount of Kshs 347,518,798.00. MAN filed an appeal with the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) premised on the grounds that the tax authorities erred in fact and in law in its demand for additional tax for FY 2012 and 2013. According to MAN, income from offshore supply of equipment by MAN DT Germany is not attributable to MAN’s Kenyan PE under Article 7 of the DTA by virtue of the Force of Attraction Rule. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment. The tax authorities then filed an appeal with the High Court. Judgement of the High Court The High Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and decided in favor of MAN’s Kenyan PE. According to the High Court, income from the supply of equipment by MAN DT Germany is not attributable to MAN’s Kenyan PE under Article 7 of the DTA by virtue of the Force of Attraction Rule. Excerpts “44. Identifying the Commissioner’s true case is important because of the nature of his statutory mandate which involves the exercise of an extraordinary administrative power enabling the Commissioner to apply the laws. The exercise of that power involves his ‘determining’ a tax liability. An appeal in this context is against the Commissioner’s ‘decision’ namely his determination of a tax liability and its amount. The basic jurisdictional requirement for the exercise of the power is that the Commissioner is ‘satisfied’ of the various requirements. Once the Commissioner reaches the requisite level of satisfaction, an appeal must, of necessity go to whether he justified in being so satisfied. He must stand or fall by his reasons for exercising the power.” 45. The reason offered by the Commissioner is that the Respondent failed to avail documents to support the income from the imports. This argument sounds attractive. But, the challenge is, the Respondent was not the importer and his role was clearly defined in the documents provided. That being the case, the Commissioner’s decision that stands on shaky ground and the TAT correctly declined to uphold it. 46. Closely tied to the above ground is the appellant’s argument that the Respondent did not produce some documents as required by section 23 of the TPA. Whereas the said section obliges a tax payer to avail records, the flip side of this position is that a party can only produce documents in his possession. It could not have been the intention of the law to compel tax payers to produce documents in the hands of a third party and more so, if the transactions were undertaken by third parties. The Respondent persuaded the TAT that it was not the importer and it could not produce documents in the hands of a third party. To expect the Respondent to produce import documents in the hands of a third-party amounts to overly overstretching the ambit of sections 23, 56(1) and 30 of the TPA. On this ground, the appellant argument collapses. 47. The evidence on record on this particular issue leaves no doubt that the Respondent discharged the burden of proof. As Lord Denning held in Miller v Minister of Pensions,[20] ‘The…{standard of proof}…is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability…if the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: ‘We think it more probable than not’ the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not.’ 48. The burden placed upon the Respondent by the law was to establish by evidence that it was not the importer and to confirm its role under the contract. Simply put, it was required to demonstrate that the tax was not due. The test is whether the Respondent established a prima facie case and having done so, the evidential burden shifted to the appellant to persuade the TAT on the contrary. It never did so. … 56. In conclusion, I find no basis at all upon which I can interfere with the TAT’s decision. The upshot is that the appellant’s appeal fails. The appeal is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.” Click here for other translation ...