IFRS 15 is not an invoice-recognition rule. Revenue is recognised when, or as, an entity satisfies a performance obligation by transferring control of a promised good or service to a customer. A contract, invoice, tax document or cash receipt may be important evidence, but none of those documents on its own determines when revenue has been earned. This guide turns the five-step model into a practical framework for students, finance teams and reviewers. It also shows why billing, accounting revenue, EFRIS or VAT records and income-tax reporting may legitimately move at different times—and why those differences still need disciplined reconciliation. IFRS 15 in brief IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers establishes the principles for reporting the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. Its core principle is that revenue should depict the transfer of promised goods or services to a customer in an amount that r...

Jurisdiction: Uganda · Decision: Tax Appeals Tribunal, Application No. 4 of 2024 · Ruling date: 30 April 2026 · FGL review: September 2026 Bujagali Energy Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority is a useful case for finance teams because it brings several difficult tax-control questions into one dispute: when an old tax period can be reopened, how foreign-currency expenditure should be translated for tax purposes, how capital project costs should be classified, and how documentary evidence affects withholding-tax positions. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed Bujagali Energy Limited's application and upheld a revised assessment of UGX 155,618,956,094, comprising income tax of UGX 155,320,573,662 and withholding tax of UGX 298,382,432. Why the case matters Large projects often produce tax positions that remain relevant long after the original transaction. Construction costs may be incurred in several currencies and across several years. Assets may be commissione...

Jurisdiction: Uganda · Decision: Tax Appeals Tribunal, Application No. 60 of 2020 · Ruling date: 29 May 2026 · FGL review: September 2026 Differences between sales reported in VAT returns, income-tax records and financial statements can trigger serious tax questions. But a variance is not, by itself, a complete tax analysis. Ericsson AB v Uganda Revenue Authority is a useful reminder that the underlying transactions, evidence and VAT computation still have to be examined. The dispute URA conducted a returns examination covering 2013 to 2017 and issued additional income-tax and VAT assessments against Ericsson AB's Ugandan branch. One of the central issues was a difference between sales reported for VAT purposes and revenue reflected in income-tax reporting. The Tribunal did not treat the existence of a numerical difference as the end of the analysis. It considered how the remaining unreconciled variance should be treated for VAT, together with interest...

Jurisdiction: Uganda · Topic: Transfer pricing and tax dispute management · Status: Pending before the Tax Appeals Tribunal at the time of this FGL review · FGL review: 21 September 2026 Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited and Stanbic Uganda Holdings Limited are contesting a major transfer-pricing assessment by the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA). Public reporting places the working dispute figure at approximately UGX 117.8 billion , and the Tax Appeals Tribunal listed TAT Application No. 170 of 2025 for conferencing in June 2026. This article does not attempt to decide who is right. The dispute is still being litigated. Instead, it uses the publicly available record to explain what finance teams can learn about related-party charges, evidence, tax governance and the management of unresolved assessments. What the dispute is about The dispute arises from URA's review of related-party transactions involving Stanbic's Ugandan operations and entities within the wider...