Sign up for tax alert emails    GTNU homepage    Tax newsroom    Email document    Print document    Download document

September 24, 2020

Kenya’s Tax Appeals Tribunal issues landmark ruling on chargeability of Excise Duty on various income streams

Executive summary

Kenya’s Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) issued a ruling, on 30 July 2020, that certain fees and commissions are not subject to excise duty following an appeal by a Kenyan financial institution represented by its tax agent, Ernst and Young LLP (Kenya). The ruling was recently released to the general public.

Detailed discussion


Excise duty on ”other fees” was introduced through the Finance Act 2012, and the term ”other fees” was defined to include, any “fees, charges, or commissions charged by a financial institution relating to their licensed financial institutions but does not include interest on loan.”

This definition was, however, lacking in the sense that it did not provide a definition of the term ”interest.” This omission resulted in different financial institutions adopting the definition provided by the Income Tax Act (ITA), the literal interpretation among other sources.

The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), on the other hand, adopted a very strict interpretation and went ahead to assess any financial institution whose tax treatment did not conform to its interpretation.

The KRA in 2016 assessed the appellant on various ”fees” including moratorium fees and flexi charges, which the revenue authority deemed ought to have been subject to excise duty. The taxpayer (Appellant) did not agree with the position that was adopted by KRA and appealed to the TAT.

Appellants’ position

The Appellant argued that the items on which the Respondent had levied excise duty were interest in nature and as such were exempt from excise duty as per the provisions of the Paragraph 4 of Part Il of the First Schedule to the Excise Duty Act (EDA), 2015 and Paragraph 7 of Part Ill of the Fifth Schedule to the Customs and Excise Duty Act (now repealed).

The Appellant’s positions were based on the following grounds:

a) The Excise Duty Act, 2015 and the Customs and Excise Duty Act (now repealed) do not define “interest.” This being the case, the Appellant relied on the definition provided in the ITA.

b) The income in contention was derived from loans extended to customers and its substance was such that it was a return on a credit facility in the nature of interest.

c) The definition provided by the ITA implied that interest incorporated all charges incidental to advancing any loan or credit facilities.

d) In the absence of an express definition in the local tax jurisdiction, a taxpayer can rely on an internationally accepted definition such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines which define ”interest” as, inter alia, “income from debt claims or every kind, whether or not secured by mortgage or whether or not carrying a right to participate in the debtor’s profits.”

KRA’s position

The KRA, on the other hand, relied on the following grounds to support its position:

a) The said fees were categorized under ”fees and commissions” in the Appellant’s Audited Financial Statements (AFS).

b) The income was deducted upfront at the loan processing stage and was therefore not deemed to be interest.

c) Interest can only accrue after a loan has been granted which implied that the ”fees”’ in contention did not meet this criterion.

d) The categorization of the income in the AFS under ”fees and commissions” implied that the ”fees” were not interest.

e) The ”fees” were not based on the prevailing interest rates as published by the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK).

f) That the definition of various categories of incomes earned by financial institutions is provided in the CBK Prudential Guidelines.

g) The ITA is a different tax legislation and could not be relied upon in determining the definition to be applied under the EDA.

Tribunal’s ruling

The Tribunal determined that:

a) The Finance Act, 2012, which introduced excise duty on other fees by financial institutions was marred by ambiguity.

b) The CBK Prudential Guidelines do not provide definitions but instead provide categories of income for purposes of the preparation of AFS.

c) The KRA which has the sole mandate of administering all taxes in Kenya cannot purport that the same item of income can be interpreted differently under different tax legislations yet there was no unique definition provided in each tax legislation.

d) The explanations provided by the Appellant made it clear that the said ”fees” were of interest in nature.


In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Respondent’s objection decision.

This is a landmark ruling that has set a firm ground on the interpretation of tax statutes and the importance of clear and express definitions in the relevant tax legislations. It has also highlighted the importance of understanding the underlying nature of items of income and expenses in deducing the appropriate tax treatment.


For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following:

Ernst & Young LLP (Kenya), Nairobi
Ernst & Young Société d’Avocats, Pan African Tax – Transfer Pricing Desk, Paris
Ernst & Young LLP (United Kingdom), Pan African Tax Desk, London
Ernst & Young LLP (United States), Pan African Tax Desk, New York



The information contained herein is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Ernst & Young LLP to the reader. The reader also is cautioned that this material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader's specific circumstances or needs, and may require consideration of non-tax and other tax factors if any action is to be contemplated. The reader should contact his or her Ernst & Young LLP or other tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Ernst & Young LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein.


Copyright © 2024, Ernst & Young LLP.


All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP.


Any U.S. tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.


"EY" refers to the global organisation, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.


Privacy  |  Cookies  |  BCR  |  Legal  |  Global Code of Conduct Opt out of all email from EY Global Limited.


Cookie Settings

This site uses cookies to provide you with a personalized browsing experience and allows us to understand more about you. More information on the cookies we use can be found here. By clicking 'Yes, I accept' you agree and consent to our use of cookies. More information on what these cookies are and how we use them, including how you can manage them, is outlined in our Privacy Notice. Please note that your decision to decline the use of cookies is limited to this site only, and not in relation to other EY sites or Please refer to the privacy notice/policy on these sites for more information.

Yes, I accept         Find out more