Skip to main content

Contact FGL

By

Use this page for general enquiries about Finance & Governance Lab, correction requests, permissions and relevant professional collaboration.

Corrections and source questions

If you believe an FGL page contains a factual or technical error, please include the page title or URL, the specific point you are querying and, where possible, the source that supports the correction. See the Corrections Policy.

Permissions and reuse

For requests to reproduce substantial FGL material, adapt a tool or reuse an original visual, identify the material and the intended use. Short quotations with clear attribution and a link to the original page are generally consistent with the site's terms.

Professional and collaboration enquiries

Relevant enquiries about finance, tax, governance, internal controls, professional learning, case analysis or FGL resources may be sent to the editor. Sending an enquiry does not create a professional engagement or advisory relationship.

Contact

Email: wasswaivanlwanga@gmail.com

LinkedIn: Wasswa Ivan Lwanga

Please do not send confidential information

Do not send passwords, tax-identification records, payroll data, client files, unpublished employer information or other confidential or sensitive material through a general website enquiry.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ernst & Young v URA: VAT on Imported Services and the UGX 3.48 Billion Assessment

By
Jurisdiction: Uganda · Decision: Commercial Court, Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2022 · Judgment date: 11 June 2026 · FGL review: September 2026 Uganda's Commercial Court has upheld a VAT assessment of UGX 3,482,492,210 against Ernst & Young Uganda in a dispute over services received from non-resident group entities and other foreign service providers. The decision is important because it gives businesses a current judicial example of how Uganda's imported-services VAT rules can apply to cross-border support, technology and professional-service arrangements. What the case was about In Ernst and Young v Uganda Revenue Authority , Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2022, the dispute concerned services obtained from entities outside Uganda, including members of the wider EY network and third-party foreign suppliers. URA treated the services as imported services and assessed VAT for the period January 2014 to June 2018. EY challenged the treatment, including arguments about where the s...
1 comment
Read more

Reconciling ERP Sales, EFRIS, VAT and Income Tax Returns: A Practical Guide

By
Scope: Uganda · Topic: Revenue reconciliation across ERP, EFRIS, VAT and income tax · FGL review: September 2026 Sales should be explainable across every system a business uses, but they will not always be numerically identical. An ERP may record invoices and journals, EFRIS records fiscal documents, VAT follows statutory supply rules, financial statements apply accounting standards, and the income-tax return applies tax rules to annual business income. The control objective is therefore not to force all four numbers to match. It is to build a documented bridge that explains why they differ, whether each difference is valid, and what evidence supports it. Why the numbers can legitimately differ A difference can arise from timing, classification, system configuration or tax treatment. Common examples include advance billings, deferred income, unbilled revenue, credit notes, exempt or zero-rated supplies, manual journals, foreign-currency treatment, customer-contra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stanbic-URA Transfer-Pricing Dispute: What Finance Teams Should Learn While the Case Is Pending

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more