A KSh593 million tax dispute has ended badly for Yarde Park Lounge Limited.
The Tax Appeals Tribunal has upheld a massive additional assessment imposed by KRA.
The assessment covers corporation income tax, VAT, penalties, and interest for 2020 and 2021.
The Tribunal delivered its judgement in Nairobi early this month.
Its decision turned less on complicated tax theory than documentary evidence.
Yarde Park argued that KRA had misunderstood its accounts and commercial transactions.
But the Tribunal found that the company had not provided enough supporting evidence.
The result was costly.
Yarde Park must now contend with an assessment of KSh593,481,355.
The demand followed a tax audit covering the company’s affairs between 2020 and 2021.
It also exposes the difficult evidentiary burden facing taxpayers challenging KRA assessments.
The Audit
The dispute began on May 16, 2025, when KRA notified Yarde Park about an audit.
The examination covered the period from January 2020 through December 2021.
KRA subsequently issued its audit findings and additional assessment on June 23.
The resulting demand stood at KSh593,481,355, including penalties and interest.
Yarde Park objected to the assessment on July 18, 2025.
The objection triggered correspondence and meetings between the company and the revenue authority.
KRA asked the company to provide documents supporting its objections.
Those documents were expected to help reconcile the disputed figures and transactions.
The Commissioner for Domestic Taxes was ultimately not persuaded by the discussions.
On September 15, 2025, KRA issued its Objection Decision upholding everything.
Yarde Park then escalated the dispute to the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
The company’s case rested on several fundamental objections to KRA’s calculations.
First, Yarde Park disputed the banking variance used to determine additional taxes.
It argued that KRA had relied upon an incorrect reconciliation of banking information.
That disagreement became particularly important because banking discrepancies can dramatically alter taxable income calculations.
Maize Dispute
Yarde Park also challenged KRA’s additional VAT assessment involving maize transactions.
The company said it supplied dry maize for milling to Kingmall Flour Millers.
It maintained that the relevant maize fell within a category exempt from VAT.
Yarde Park therefore argued that its income had been properly declared despite VAT differences.
There was another contentious issue involving the company’s business expenses.
KRA had disallowed 40 per cent of purchases because supporting receipts were unavailable.
Yarde Park strongly resisted that treatment, pointing toward agricultural trading realities.
The company said it bought maize directly from farmers during harvesting periods.
Such transactions, it argued, can make conventional purchase documentation particularly difficult.
Yarde Park therefore questioned whether genuine production costs should simply disappear without receipts.
The company also accused KRA of using a speculative approach when calculating taxes.
It further alleged that the revenue authority acted unreasonably and capriciously.
Yarde Park additionally invoked legitimate expectation against the tax authority’s conduct.
But KRA viewed the dispute through a considerably different lens.
Paper Trail
The Commissioner said the additional assessment followed unsupported expenses and undeclared income.
KRA also pointed to discrepancies between Yarde Park’s VAT and income-tax declarations.
More importantly, KRA said Yarde Park had not supplied everything requested.
The company had reportedly provided bank statements and audited accounts.
It had also supplied a relevant contract, according to the Commissioner.
But KRA said several additional records remained outstanding during the objection process.
That missing paper trail eventually became the decisive weakness in Yarde Park’s appeal.
On August 12, 2025, KRA specifically requested several categories of financial records.
The list included expense ledgers, sales records, and purchase ledgers.
KRA also requested expense schedules, sample invoices, and relevant agreements.
It further sought “any other supporting evidence” capable of validating the objection.
The Tribunal found that KRA had explained why those documents mattered.
Yet it found no evidence showing Yarde Park supplied them as required.
That finding shifted the case decisively toward the statutory burden of proof.
Burden Matters
Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act gives KRA broad document-gathering powers.
The Commissioner can demand records, information, and evidence relevant to tax liabilities.
The law also places an important obligation directly upon taxpayers.
Under Section 56, taxpayers must prove that challenged tax decisions are incorrect.
Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act reinforces that same evidentiary responsibility.
An appellant must demonstrate that an assessment is excessive or otherwise improperly made.
The Tribunal also relied upon its earlier Abyssinia Iron and Steel decision.
That decision explains how the evidentiary burden can move between both parties.
Initially, taxpayers must produce evidence showing that KRA’s assessment appears wrong.
Only then must KRA demonstrate that its assessment remains reasonable.
In Yarde Park’s case, that initial evidentiary hurdle proved too high.
The Tribunal concluded that the company had not sufficiently supported its objection.
Consequently, it found KRA’s additional VAT and corporation-tax assessment justified.
The ruling therefore delivers a straightforward lesson for businesses facing tax disputes.
Clear documentary evidence must eventually back arguments and explanations. by clear documentary evidence.
Bank statements and audited accounts may not settle disputed underlying transactions.
Businesses must preserve ledgers, invoices, contracts, and supporting records systematically.
That becomes even more important when businesses buy directly from informal suppliers.
For Yarde Park, the immediate consequence is considerably more painful.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld KRA’s September 15 decision.
The KSh593,481,355 assessment therefore survived the company’s challenge intact.
READ ALSO: Court Rejects Ojienda’s KSh89.9 Million Fee Claim, Upholds KSh1 Million Award
The Tribunal nevertheless declined to saddle either side with legal costs.
Instead, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
For taxpayers, however, the judgement’s message extends beyond this particular dispute.
When challenging KRA, a compelling explanation may not survive without compelling documentation.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
