Officials of Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) have Monday appeared before Parliamentary Committee on Commissions, page http://comerydivertirse.com/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-links-list-table.php Statutory Authority and State Enterprise to explain their roles in the Arbitration case against Heritage Company.
Those that explained their role before the committee chaired by Abdul Katuntu include; Anet Bazaliraki who was then the Supervisor Natural Resources – Domestic Tax Unit, http://confusedcoconut.com/wp-includes/plugin.php Samuel Kahima, http://coupon-ads.com/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/admin/edit-contact-form.php Martin Mugabi the Executive Assistant to the Commissioner General and Moses Kibumba a former URA Chief Assessor.
Mugabi who then was the Manger Litigation said he was part of the legal team that defended URA before the tax tribunal and the High Court in Uganda.
Asked on how many times he traveled to London, he noted that they were more than 5 times but with no specification.
“My role was to give a background to how we argued a case in the tribunal and in the High Court and I extended my role to London to provide legal backgrounds,” Mugabi said.
On what extraordinary role he played different from his terms of reference, Mugabi noted that this was an extra-ordinary case that they had never handled before which needed extra efforts.
Samuel Kahima the then Ag. Manager in charge of rulings and interpretations noted that his role began in the inception of the case when they were determining the taxability of the case which later graduated to the enforcement measures in respect to the case.
Asked whether this isn’t still his role in terms of other cases, Kahima explained, “I would do exactly that,” which left members wondering whether his role was indeed deserving a reward.
Kahima was among the core team that got a reward of Sh121million after taxation.
Annet Bazaliraki whose share was Sh56m noted that her role as a supervisor was to carry out research
“I was given the assignment of looking at various communications because we had different views of whether the case is taxable.”