Q&A with FB Attorneys

Out of Court settlements for tax disputes

I am a tax consultant based in Dar es Salaam and was recently browsing through the internet when I found an update you wrote on the Finance Bill, 2024. I was interested in several aspects you highlighted including the number of days within which an out-of-Court settlement of a pending appeal must be resolved. Now that the Finance Bill has been passed into law, I would like to learn more about this.?Please guide me.

ZK, Dar es Salaam

Since you are a tax consultant you may be aware that the law allows a taxpayer and the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) to engage in an amicable settlement of a tax dispute that is pending in our tax Court system. An amicable settlement can be initiated at any point before the pronouncement of judgment. The amicable settlement process is aimed at expediting the resolution of tax disputes. However, from experience, this process may also take time.?To curb the time hurdle, section 100 of the Finance Act, 2024 (Act No. 6 of 2024) amended section 22 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act [Cap. 408 R.E. 2019] by adding that where parties have applied for amicable settlement, the appeal shall be settled amicably within 60 days from the date the Board or Tribunal issued an order allowing the appeal to be settled amicably. Further, upon expiry of 60 days, if the parties have not finalized their settlement, the Board or Tribunal may upon application by a party and on good reasons, grant an extension of time not exceeding 10 days. If the out-of-Court settlement fails within the prescribed time, then the settlement of the appeal will be treated as failed and the Board or Tribunal will proceed to determine the appeal.

We believe the legislature intended to ensure that amicable settlements do not turn out to be time-consuming like in the conventional Court process system where cases would keep on getting adjourned under the purview of settlement discussions. Our interpretation is that the Board or Tribunal will not allow any further adjournments of the case if the 60+10 days have passed that the Board or the Tribunal would have granted when parties appear before them to adjourn the matter based on a settlement being proposed. However, we don’t believe that parties cannot settle the matter any time before judgment. This remains untested but our position at FB Attorneys remains as above to wit that the 60+10 days concerns adjournments at the Board and Tribunal when parties are already before the Board or Tribunal, otherwise it will be counterproductive to tax disputes resolution.

Spraying?banknotes in the air

I have seen people throwing banknotes in the air while dancing at social events including weddings.? This behavior is also very common among celebrities who usually show off their wealth on social media by spraying money in the air. I believe this is done as a sign of wealth. Few months ago I went to a wedding and there was money being sprayed all over the place and people were stepping on our legal tender. I found the behaviour strange and though the owner owns the money, can he do whatever he wants with it? Is this not disrespecting our currency?

GB, Dar es Salaam

We have noticed that the spraying of banknotes is now?common in social events. While many people do this, the law does not permit it and considers it an abuse of the currency.? Defacing of a currency is the phrase used to refer to actions such as writing on, mutilating, spraying, diminishing, squeezing, tearing, stapling, soiling, and piercing on any other form of abuse on a bank note. Throwing money in the air may amount to the defacing of a currency where the thrown notes are then stepped on, squeezed, or mutilated.

Section 332A of the Penal Code [Cap. 16. R.E. 2022] states that any person who, without authority, willfully defaces, tears, cuts, or otherwise mutilates any bank note or currency note which is a legal tender, is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of TZS 500,000 for each note defaced, or in default, to imprisonment for a term of 1 year. Take note that this is not only an offence in Tanzania. Other countries have similar regulations against the defacing of a currency. You are therefore advised to be mindful of how you handle bank notes in your activities. Your lawyer can guide you further.

Conviction on circumstantial evidence

My uncle was recently convicted of murder. There was no eye witness to the murder and my uncle was convicted just because he was the last person to be seen with the deceased. I do not think the Court made a justifiable decision. Is it proper for a Court of law to rely on circumstantial evidence? Kindly guide me.

LM, Kigoma

In the administration of justice, Courts prefer direct evidence since it is based on a witness’s knowledge of facts and links the accused person directly to the crime. Nonetheless, Courts may in some instances grant conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. There are several cases where the Courts have articulated the basic test that must be fulfilled for conviction to rely solely on circumstantial evidence. In summary, Courts have a settled view that the said circumstantial evidence must lead to the inference that it was the accused and no one else who committed the offence. Further, such evidence must also be incapable of any other interpretation than pointing towards the guilt of the accused. You will note that this is a very difficult test and that is why circumstantial evidence is relied upon in very few exceptional cases. Since we do not have all the facts on your uncle’s case, we cannot comment on his conviction. You might still be within your right to appeal and you should pursue it if you think this was a wrong conviction. Your lawyer can guide you further.