Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court Uganda 2017 63 - 2 PDF
Supreme Court Uganda 2017 63 - 2 PDF
BETWEEN
AND
4
Being dissatisfied with both concurrent decisions of the
Courts below, the appellant appealed to this court on
three grounds namely:
1. That the learned justices of the Court of
Appeal erred in law and in fact when they
held that the benefits received by the
respondent are not taxable.
5
they were redundant and not working at the time of
receipt of the money.
The appellant is mandated and empowered by both the
Constitution Article 79(1) and the Income Tax Act Section
4 (1) to levy tax on employment incomes of citizen.
Section 19(1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) and (h) of the Act
is clearly reproduced in the lead judgment. It spells out
those incomes, compensations and other benefits that
attract taxation. It is clear from the record and
submission of both counsel that the money that was paid
to the respondents and named “retrenchment
package” was compensation within the meaning of
Section 19 (1) (d) of Income Tax Act.
It provides:
19(1) d
“Any amount derived as compensation for the
termination of any contract of employment,
within or not provision is made in the contract
6
of employment of such compensation or any
among amount derived within communication
of amounts due under any contract of
employment”.
I would also order that each party bears its own costs
A.S. NSHIMYE
A.G. JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT