AFRICAN BARRICK GOLD PLC (now Acacia Mining Plc), the largest mining company operating in Tanzania, was issued a tax bill for unpaid taxes, interest and penalties for alleged under-declared export revenues from the Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines.
Acacia Mining was accused of operating illegally in the country and for tax evasion.
Decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal
The Tribunal decided in favour of the tax authorities.
“The conclusion that can be drawn from the above definitions is that the explanation offered by ABG as the source of dividends, i.e., distributable reserves and IPO proceeds are far from being plausible. In the circumstances, it is fair to conclude that the respondent’s argument that the transactions were simply a design created by the appellant aimed at tax evasion was justified. One also wonders as to how could part of IPO proceeds, a one-off event, even if those proceeds were distributable as dividends (which in law they are not), could explain the payment of four-years, back-to-back dividends to the appellant’s shareholders.
Since ABG’s only entities that carry on business anywhere in the world are the three Tanzanian gold-mining companies, ABG’s only source of revenue that could create net profits or retained earnings would be the three Tanzanian companies (or one or more of them). While none of them was allegedly making any profits, and since the appellant has no other subsidiary anywhere in the world engaged in business, one is compelled to further conclude that at least one, if not more or all, of the appellant’s three gold producing subsidiaries in Tanzania was making profit. We see no other plausible explanation.
Ultimately, the fact that none of ABG’s subsidiaries is declaring any profit that could provide its holding company with such huge net profits sufficient to distribute to its shareholders four years in a row is what in our respectful opinion constitutes the evidence of a sophisticated scheme of tax evasion. To borrow the words of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, this Tribunal cannot accept to be relegated to a mere spectator, mesmerized by the moves of the appellant’s game, oblivious of the end result. The circumstances remind one of the wise words of Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Re Rouss, 116 N.E. 782 at 785, who stated: “Consequences cannot alter statutes but may help to fix their meaning.”
We are thus of the respectful view that the Board was entitled to go beyond the mere plain meaning of the provisions of section 66 (4) (a) of the Income Tax Act. The circumstances fully justified the application of the purposive approach rule in construction of tax statutes, as promulgated by Lord Wilberforce in W. T. Ramsay and more elaborately explained by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in McGuckian. Hence, by recognizing the scheme behind the facade that ultimately enabled it to uncover the true source of the dividends that ABG was able to pay to its shareholders for four consecutive years, the Board took the correct view of the law.
With these findings we see no merit in the first and second grounds of appeal, and we would dismiss both of them.
This conclusion would allow us to now determine the third ground of the appeal to the effect that the Commissioner General was justified in invoking his powers under section 133 (2) of the Income Tax Act , 2004 and section 19 (4) of the Value Added Tax Act to register the appellant under the two Acts and issue it with TIN and VRN Certificates.
In the ultimate result, we find no merit in this appeal. We dismiss it with costs.”