TAYLOR & TAYLOR LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017]DLHC6267

Date	2017-12-21
Suit No.	Suit No. TAX/01/15
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC6267

JENNIFER DODOO (MRS)

S. K. AMOAH (WITH WILLIAM DEMITIA AND NANA AMA PANYIN AMOAH) FOR THE APPELLANT

ODARTEY LAMPTEY (WITH ANATU BOGOBIRI) FOR 1ST RESPONDENT NO APPEARANCE FOR 2ND RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC6267
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >TAYLOR &amp; TAYLOR LTD<o:p></o:p>{APPELLANT}<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>{RESPONDENTS}<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

Suit No. TAX/01/15&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 21ST DECEMBER 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>S. K. AMOAH (WITH WILLIAM DEMITIA
AND NANA AMA PANYIN AMOAH) FOR THE APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>ODARTEY LAMPTEY (WITH ANATU
BOGOBIRI) FOR 1ST RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

NO APPEARANCE FOR 2ND
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JENNIFER DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE
HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Tax
Assessment: Whether or not there was a wrong use of discretion<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There are only two certainties in
life: Death and Taxes!&nbsp; There is no
escape from either of these variables.&nbsp; The
inscription on the IRS building in Washington reads:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“TAXES ARE WHAT WE PAY FOR A CIVILIZED SOCIETY”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 1st Respondent is the
body responsible for tax administration.&nbsp;
Apart from filing processes at the inception of this appeal, the 2nd
Respondent did not participate in the appeal.&nbsp;
The whole appeal was therefore determined with the active participation
of the Appellant a limited liability company and taxpayer and 1st
Respondent alone. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is an Appeal against the tax
assessment made by the Respondent against the Applicant.&nbsp; The Applicant listed 7 grounds of appeal
namely:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">The Commissioner-General erred
 in basing his assessment on false and inaccurate figures said to have been
 received by the Ministry of Health.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">In arriving at his assessment,
 the Commissioner-General erred having regard to the discrepancies in the computation
 on which the assessment is based.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">The Commissioner-General erred
 in basing his assessment on the audit report which failed to disclose the
 rate at which monies allegedly paid by the Ministry of Health to the
 Appellant in foreign currency were converted into Ghana cedis.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">The Commissioner-General erred
 by grounding his assessment on an audit which went beyond the 6-year
 period within which the Appellant (tax payer) was bound by Section 122(3)
 of Act 592 to maintain records.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">The audit report on which the
 assessment is based failed to take into account what constitutes business
 income under section 7 of Act 592 in determining the Appellant’s alleged
 undisclosed income.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">The Commissioner-General erred
 in notifying the Bank of Ghana to pay GH¢6,713,240.95 to Ghana Revenue
 Authority on behalf of the Appellant as its tax liability when the
 Appellant had not been served with a notice of assessment.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo1">The Commissioner-General erred
 when he applied penalty of 30% for the late filing of returns by the
 Appellant from 2011 to 2013.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Appellant however abandoned the
1st, 2nd and 3rd grounds of appeal leaving 4
outstanding grounds. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Appellant’s Case<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Commissioner-General erred by grounding his assessment on an audit which went
beyond the 6-year period within which the Appellant (tax payer) was bound by
Section 122(3) of Act 592 to maintain records.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Appellant referred the court to
section 122 of Act 592 which states:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>