CM REGULATORY ALERT
High Court clarifies the evidential standard for challenging KRA assessments and rejects the “document dump” approach
Executive Summary
In Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs. Jakoline Enterprises Limited (Income Tax Appeal E016 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11141 (KLR), the High Court at Nairobi delivered an important judgment on the burden of proof in Kenyan tax disputes. The Court considered whether a taxpayer discharges its statutory burden merely by submitting large volumes of invoices, bank statements and financial records, or whether it must demonstrate, through a specific and intelligible reconciliation, how those materials disprove the assessment under challenge.
The Court held that the production of voluminous, unindexed, irrelevant or chronologically mismatched documents does not, by itself, satisfy the taxpayer’s burden under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, 2013. Where the Kenya Revenue Authority (“KRA” or “the Commissioner”) identifies a specific and quantifiable discrepancy between a taxpayer’s own returns, the taxpayer must present competent, relevant and period-specific evidence explaining the variance and establishing the correct tax treatment.
The Court therefore allowed the Commissioner’s appeal, set aside the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s decision and reinstated additional Income Tax and Value Added Tax (“VAT”) assessments totalling KES 29,208,766.
The judgment central message is straightforward: the volume of documents supplied is not a substitute for their relevance, organisation and evidential value.
-
Background to the Dispute
The Commissioner conducted a desk audit of Jakoline Enterprises Limited’s Income Tax and VAT returns for the period between 2017 and 2020. The audit identified significant inconsistencies between purchases claimed in the company’s corporation tax returns and purchases declared in its monthly VAT returns.
Following the audit, KRA issued additional assessments comprising KES 14,478,939 for Income Tax and KES 14,729,827 for VAT, resulting in an aggregate assessment of KES 29,208,766.
The taxpayer lodged notices of objection outside the prescribed period. The Commissioner nevertheless allowed the late objections and requested supporting information and documentation. In response, the taxpayer supplied invoices, bank statements, financial statements and bulk electronic records.
The Commissioner considered the materials insufficiently structured and inadequately connected to the specific discrepancies identified during the audit. It therefore issued an objection decision on 29 August 2022 confirming the assessments in full.
The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). On 10th November 2023, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the assessments. It found that the taxpayer had discharged its burden by providing financial records and that the evidential burden had shifted to the Commissioner to investigate and trace the relevant transactions within the documents supplied.
The Commissioner appealed to the High Court, contending that the Tribunal had misapplied the statutory burden of proof, overlooked the taxpayer’s failure to respond to targeted requests with sufficient specificity and set aside the assessments without verifying the relevance, competence and evidential value of the materials produced.
The High Court agreed with the Commissioner.
-
The Statutory Burden of Proof
2.1 The Taxpayer Must Prove that the Tax Decision Is Incorrect
Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act provides that:
“In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.”
Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act similarly places the burden upon the taxpayer to prove that an assessment is excessive or that a tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.
Tax disputes therefore operate within a specific statutory framework. An assessment remains operative unless the taxpayer produces sufficient evidence demonstrating that it is factually or legally incorrect.
This allocation of the burden reflects the self-assessment nature of Kenya’s tax system. The taxpayer ordinarily possesses the relevant information concerning its income, expenditure, contracts, suppliers, customers, stock movements, bank accounts, payment records and the commercial circumstances underlying the disputed tax treatment. It is consequently the party best placed to explain an inconsistency between its returns or records.
The taxpayer must present an affirmative and evidentially supported case. A bare denial of liability, general criticism of the assessment or assertion that all relevant records were supplied will not ordinarily be sufficient.
2.2 The Distinction Between the Legal and Evidential Burdens
The legal burden of proving that a tax decision is incorrect ultimately remains upon the taxpayer. The evidential burden may, however, shift between the parties as the dispute develops.
Where the taxpayer produces competent, relevant and properly reconciled evidence, KRA must engage with that evidence and explain why it accepts or rejects the taxpayer’s position. If KRA identifies credible defects, inconsistencies or missing records, the taxpayer must respond to those concerns with further evidence or a satisfactory explanation.
The taxpayer cannot continue to rely upon an initial production after KRA has identified specific deficiencies in the documents or the underlying transactions.
-
Why the Taxpayer’s Evidence Failed
The High Court rejected the proposition that a taxpayer discharges its burden merely by uploading a substantial volume of financial records.
Where KRA identifies an express and quantifiable variance between returns submitted by the same taxpayer, the taxpayer must direct the Commissioner, Tribunal or Court to the evidence that explains the discrepancy. It must show how the documents relate to the disputed period, connect to the relevant transactions and establish the correct tax position.
For the 2017 tax period, KRA had identified an unreconciled purchase variance of approximately KES 115,049,988 between the taxpayer’s corporation tax return and VAT returns. When requested to provide invoices and corresponding proof of payment for that period, the taxpayer supplied bulk invoices relating to 2020. Documents from a different tax period could not explain or disprove the variance identified for 2017.
The taxpayer also failed to provide schedules matching individual invoices to banking entries, ledger postings, delivery or stock records, VAT declarations and corporation tax computations. The Commissioner and the Court could not determine how the materials supplied supported the taxpayer’s alternative position.
KRA had further identified duplicate invoices. The taxpayer did not adequately explain whether the entries represented separate supplies, accidental duplications, reversals or credit notes. It also stated that it did not deal in exempt supplies, yet the invoices produced showed that exempt food items, including rice, maize and wheat flour, formed a substantial part of its business.
Those inconsistencies required a clear explanation of the nature of the supplies, their VAT classification, the treatment of input VAT and any necessary apportionment between taxable and exempt activities. No satisfactory reconciliation was provided.
The Court accordingly held that the taxpayer had not displaced the presumption supporting the assessment.
-
From Accounting Records to Proof of Commercial Reality
The judgment reinforces the distinction between the existence of accounting documents and proof of an actual commercial transaction.
An invoice, bank statement or ledger entry may constitute preliminary evidence of a transaction. It does not invariably prove that goods were supplied, services were rendered, payment was made or an expense was incurred wholly and exclusively in the production of income.
Depending on the nature of the adjustment, a taxpayer may need to produce contracts, purchase orders, delivery notes, goods-received notes, stock records, transport documents, correspondence with suppliers, proof of performance, payment instructions, bank confirmations, withholding tax certificates and evidence of the supplier’s identity and capacity.
The evidence should establish a coherent commercial trail from the contractual arrangement or purchase order, through supply or performance, invoicing, payment, accounting recognition and the resulting tax treatment.
This approach is consistent with the principles applied in Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Structural International Kenya Ltd [2021] KEHC 152 (KLR), Commissioner of Domestic Services v Galaxy Tools Limited [2021] KEHC 5530 (KLR) and Osho Drapers Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2022] KEHC 196 (KLR). Together, these authorities demonstrate that statutory invoices and ledger entries may not be sufficient where the Commissioner raises credible concerns regarding the legitimacy, delivery, payment or commercial substance of the transactions.
For transactions involving goods, the taxpayer should ordinarily be able to trace the transaction from the supplier and purchase arrangement through delivery, stock entry, invoicing, payment and the relevant VAT or Income Tax treatment.
For services, the evidential trail may include the engagement terms, scope of work, deliverables, correspondence, reports or other work product, evidence of performance, invoicing, payment, withholding tax treatment and the commercial purpose of the expenditure.
-
What Constitutes Sufficient Tax Evidence?
5.1 Competence, Relevance and Sufficiency
Competent evidence is evidence capable of proving the proposition for which it is relied upon. Its value may depend upon its authenticity, completeness, consistency with other records, connection to the taxpayer and ability to establish the underlying commercial transaction. An incomplete, unsigned, undated, altered or internally inconsistent document may carry limited evidential weight.
Relevant evidence must relate directly to the disputed tax head, correct tax period, specific transaction, adjustment made by KRA and ground stated in the objection. A genuine document may nevertheless be irrelevant if it concerns a different period, supplier, transaction or issue.
The evidence must also be sufficient. Sufficiency depends upon the nature of the transaction and the adjustment under challenge. A single invoice may not be enough where KRA has raised legitimate questions regarding delivery, payment, stock movement, the supplier’s existence or the commercial purpose of the transaction.
5.2 Evidence Must Be Organised and Intelligible
A properly prepared evidential record should ordinarily include a covering submission explaining the taxpayer’s position, a numbered issue matrix, a master reconciliation, transaction-level schedules and an indexed bundle of supporting documents.
The submissions, schedules and documents should be cross-referenced. Missing records, unmatched transactions, timing differences, reversals, credit notes, duplicate entries, foreign-exchange movements and classification errors should be expressly identified and explained.
The Commissioner, Tribunal or Court should be able to understand and verify the taxpayer’s case without independently reconstructing the taxpayer’s accounts.
-
How the Evidential Burden Operates in Practice?
The judgment should be read alongside Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority; Proto Energy Limited (Ex parte) [2022] KEHC 5 (KLR).
KRA initially issues an assessment based on the taxpayer’s returns, third-party information, audit findings and other information available to it. The assessment remains operative unless rebutted.
The taxpayer must then identify why the assessment is incorrect and produce sufficient evidence supporting its alternative position. A general objection or unstructured production of records will ordinarily be insufficient.
Where the taxpayer produces competent, relevant and properly reconciled evidence, KRA must genuinely engage with it. The Commissioner should not disregard cogent evidence without explanation or confirm an assessment merely because it was previously issued.
If KRA identifies credible defects-such as missing delivery records, duplicate invoices, inconsistent payment methods, non-existent suppliers, stock discrepancies, period mismatches or unexplained related-party transactions-the taxpayer must address those concerns.
The Tribunal or Court ultimately determines whether the taxpayer has proved that the tax decision is incorrect on the basis of the record properly presented. The dispute is not decided on what might theoretically be discovered within an unanalysed electronic archive.
-
KRA Must Still Act Lawfully and Fairly
The decision does not grant KRA unrestricted authority to issue or confirm arbitrary assessments.
The Commissioner remains subject to the Constitution, the Tax Procedures Act, the Fair Administrative Action Act, the applicable charging legislation and the requirements of procedural fairness.
Where a taxpayer supplies competent, relevant and reconciled evidence, KRA should consider that evidence in good faith, address the taxpayer’s material explanations, identify any remaining deficiencies with reasonable specificity and explain the factual and statutory basis of each adjustment.
The Commissioner should also av oid repeated or unnecessarily piecemeal requests where the relevant information could reasonably be sought through one coordinated request. An objection decision should distinguish accepted and disputed items and provide intelligible reasons for the conclusions reached.
A taxpayer may challenge a tax decision where KRA fails to consider relevant evidence, relies upon irrelevant considerations, changes the basis of an assessment without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond, acts outside its statutory authority or violates the taxpayer’s right to fair administrative action.
The taxpayer’s burden of proof and KRA’s public-law obligations therefore operate concurrently. One does not eliminate the other.
-
Preparing a Defensible Tax Objection
A notice of objection should be treated as the foundation of the taxpayer’s controversy record. It should identify the assessment challenged, the relevant tax head and period, the principal tax, penalties and interest disputed, and each factual or legal adjustment made by KRA.
Each ground should explain KRA’s finding, why the finding is incorrect, the taxpayer’s alternative position, the amount affected and the evidence supporting that position. General assertions that an assessment is excessive or that all taxes have been paid may be inadequate without further particulars.
The taxpayer should prepare a master reconciliation beginning with the figures contained in the filed returns and explaining each adjustment necessary to arrive at the proposed tax position. Depending on the dispute, this may require reconciling corporation tax returns to audited financial statements, VAT returns to sales and purchase ledgers, VAT turnover to corporation tax turnover, customs declarations to inventory records, payroll returns to staff costs and bank deposits to invoiced revenue.
An issue matrix should connect every KRA adjustment to the taxpayer’s factual response, legal basis, reconciliation, supporting documents and amount in dispute.
The evidential bundle should be paginated, searchable and organised by issue or tax head. Every material proposition in the objection should direct the decision-maker to the relevant schedule and source document.
-
Practical Implications for Taxpayers and Boards
The decision underscores the importance of tax-governance systems capable of producing an audit-ready evidential trail.
Boards and audit committees should treat inconsistencies between tax returns, financial statements and accounting records as a material tax risk. They should receive periodic reports on unresolved reconciliations, ongoing KRA audits, disputed assessments, missing source documents, contingent tax liabilities and objection or appeal deadlines.
Chief financial officers, tax directors and finance controllers should conduct periodic cross-return reviews covering VAT and corporation tax turnover, VAT purchases and deductible expenditure, payroll taxes and staff costs, withholding taxes and corresponding expenses, customs entries and inventory records, excise declarations and bank movements.
Accountants and external auditors should preserve the working papers supporting tax computations, year-end adjustments, provisions, accruals, capital allowances, bad-debt deductions, input VAT claims and related-party transactions. A final tax computation without the underlying reconciliation may be insufficient when KRA conducts an audit several years later.
Legal teams should become involved early where the amounts are material, criminal exposure may arise, suppliers are under investigation, privilege-sensitive material is requested, the Commissioner changes the basis of an assessment or the matter is likely to proceed to ADR or litigation.
Taxpayers with pending audits, objections or appeals should immediately review whether their record contains a complete master reconciliation, transaction-level schedules, evidence for the correct periods, responses to every KRA query and proof of the underlying commercial transactions.
A taxpayer should not assume that an appeal will provide an unrestricted opportunity to reconstruct a case that was inadequately presented during the objection process.
-
Pre-Submission Review
Before responding to KRA or lodging an objection, a taxpayer should be satisfied that an independent reviewer can reproduce its tax position without making assumptions; every supporting document relates to the correct taxpayer, period, tax head and adjustment; all relevant returns have been reconciled; and each material invoice can be matched to delivery or performance, payment, accounting recognition and tax treatment.
The taxpayer should also confirm that every KRA request has been answered, apparent duplications and timing differences have been explained, and the evidence proves the commercial substance of the transactions rather than merely the existence of accounting entries.
The electronic record should be indexed, searchable and cross-referenced. Tax, finance, legal and operational teams should verify that the written explanation is consistent with the underlying records and commercial reality.
-
Conclusion
Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs. Jakoline Enterprises Limited reinforces a central principle of Kenyan tax dispute resolution: a taxpayer must prove its case, not merely produce its records.
The statutory burden is not discharged by overwhelming KRA, the Tribunal or the Court with invoices, bank statements, ledgers or bulk electronic files. The taxpayer must demonstrate how the evidence relates to the disputed period, explains the identified discrepancy and proves the asserted tax treatment.
A persuasive tax response should operate as a structured proof architecture connecting the assessment, grounds of objection, applicable law, accounting reconciliation, individual transactions and supporting source documents.
The judgment equally confirms that KRA is not required to search through a mass of unindexed material to construct the taxpayer’s defence. However, KRA must still act lawfully, fairly and rationally, genuinely consider properly presented evidence and provide intelligible reasons for its decisions.
Taxpayers should therefore invest in strong tax governance, contemporaneous record-keeping, cross-return reconciliation and early professional management of audits and objections.
In tax disputes, volume is not proof. The decisive question is whether the taxpayer has presented competent, relevant, sufficient and intelligible evidence demonstrating why the tax decision is incorrect.
How We Can Assist
The Tax & International Business Advisory (TIBA) Unit, working with the Dispute Resolution & Appellate Practice Group, assists local and international taxpayers throughout the tax controversy lifecycle.
Our services include tax compliance and controversy health checks, pre-audit readiness reviews, management of KRA audits and investigations, preparation of reconciliations and evidential bundles, responses to information requests, notices of objection, extension-of-time applications, ADR negotiations and representation before the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
We also represent clients in High Court and Court of Appeal tax litigation, judicial review and constitutional tax proceedings, transfer-pricing disputes, customs matters, VAT and Income Tax assessments, excise disputes and withholding-tax controversies.
Our multidisciplinary approach combines tax, accounting, commercial, regulatory and dispute-resolution capabilities to develop a coherent evidential record from the first audit query through final determination.
Contact Us
Tax & International Business Advisory (TIBA) Unit
E: tiba@cmadvocates.com
Dispute Resolution & Appellate Practice Group
E: disputeresolution@cmadvocates.com
CM ADVOCATES LLP
Head Office – Nairobi
I&M Bank House, 7th Floor
2nd Ngong Avenue
P.O. Box 22588–00505
Nairobi.
E: law@cmadvocates.com
Mombasa Office
Links Plaza, 3rd Floor
Links Road, Nyali
P.O. Box 90056–80100
Mombasa.
E: mombasaoffice@cmadvocates.com
Regional Offices: Kampala | Dar es Salaam | Kigali | Lusaka | Juba | Addis Ababa
Disclaimer: This Regulatory Alert is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal, accounting or tax advice. Every tax audit, assessment, objection and appeal is fact-specific. Appropriate professional advice should be obtained before any action is taken.