Skip to main content

Corrections Policy

By

FGL treats correction as part of publication quality, not as an embarrassment to be hidden. Technical and professional content can be affected by new evidence, amended law, revised standards, later court decisions or simple human error.

1. What FGL corrects

Corrections may be made for factual errors, inaccurate calculations, broken or misleading source attribution, incorrect dates, material omissions, outdated technical statements, misleading headings, defective links or other issues that could materially affect a reader's understanding.

2. Minor edits

Spelling, grammar, formatting, accessibility improvements and other edits that do not change the substance of the article may be corrected without a formal correction notice.

3. Substantive corrections

Where an edit materially changes a factual statement, technical conclusion, calculation, case status or practical recommendation, FGL should update the content and record the change in a visible note or review history where appropriate.

4. Changing law, standards or case status

An article that was accurate when published may later become outdated. In that situation FGL may update the article, add a dated notice, link to a newer resource or preserve the earlier analysis while clearly explaining that the applicable position has changed.

5. Retractions or withdrawals

If a page is fundamentally unreliable and cannot responsibly be corrected in place, FGL may withdraw, unpublish or replace it. Where readers may otherwise rely on an old link, a short explanatory notice or redirect may be used rather than silently allowing misleading content to remain.

6. Reader-submitted corrections

Readers are encouraged to identify possible errors and provide the relevant source or context. A correction request does not guarantee that FGL will agree with the proposed interpretation, but material concerns should be reviewed in good faith.

7. Corrections are evidence-led

FGL does not alter a documented conclusion merely because it is unpopular or inconvenient. A correction should be driven by better evidence, a clearer source, changed authority or a genuine editorial error.

8. How to report an issue

Use the Contact FGL page and include the page title or URL, the statement you believe requires correction, and the source or reasoning supporting the request. Do not send confidential client or employer information.

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

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

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