Sign up for tax alert emails GTNU homepage Tax newsroom Email document Print document Download document | |||
April 13, 2021 Kenya’s Tax Appeal Tribunal provides guidance on taxation of professional and managements fees under Double Tax Treaty Agreement Executive summary The Kenyan Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) on 1 April 2021 ruled on tax dispute between McKinsey and Company Inc. Africa Limited (McKinsey/the Appellant) and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA/the Respondent) with respect to the withholding tax (WHT) on professional fees paid to a South African entity (SA entity) under the Kenya-South Africa Double Tax Treaty Agreement (DTTA). McKinsey’s contention was that the taxing rights for professional fees should be guided by the Article on business profits. The KRA’s position had been that where the DTTA does not contain a specific article on professional and management fees, such income is taxable under the ”Other Incomes” Article which grants Kenya taxing rights. The TAT ruled in favor of McKinsey. In essence, the TAT grounds the well accepted guidance provided by the commentary under Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Model Tax Treaty as sufficing for interpreting DTTAs and effectively respects the pacta sunt servanda principle. In summary, where a DTTA does not contain a separate article regarding management or professional fees, such fees should be characterized as business profits. Detailed discussion Background McKinsey is a branch of a South African company whose principal business activity in Kenya is the provision of consultancy services including strategy, operation, financial and human resource consulting. The KRA conducted an audit of McKinsey’s tax affairs for the period of 2014 to 2017 that resulted in a confirmed assessment of additional withholding tax on professional fees paid to its related party in South Africa (not its head-office). The Appellant appealed the decision of the KRA to the TAT on the grounds that the Respondent had wrongly applied the provisions of the Kenya-SA DTTA to the Appellant’s business. The TAT concluded that there was only one issue for determination, being, whether the Respondent erred in demanding WHT from the Appellant on professional fees paid to its related party in South Africa. The Appellant’s position
The Respondent’s position
TAT Decision The TAT found that:
Next steps Even though it is expected that the KRA will appeal this decision, it is a landmark ruling that provides clarity on the interpretation of DTTAs in Kenya. It is specifically applicable to the DTTAs that do not have a specific article dedicated to the taxation of professional fees such the DTTAs between Kenya and South Africa, France, Korea, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. ______________________________________ For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following: Ernst & Young (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
| |||