Skip to main content

Editorial Standards

Finance & Governance Lab (FGL) publishes practical professional content on tax, accounting, governance, internal controls, finance systems, automation and related organisational questions. These standards explain how that content should be prepared, reviewed and maintained.

1. Accuracy before speed

FGL prioritises accurate, useful and defensible work over publication volume. Important factual or technical claims should be supported by credible authority, with primary sources preferred where reasonably available.

2. Sources and evidence

Legislation, regulations, court or tribunal decisions, regulator guidance, accounting or auditing standards, official reports and original institutional documents are preferred for technical propositions. Secondary commentary may be used for context, explanation or to identify issues that require verification.

For the detailed source hierarchy and research process, see Sources & Research Methodology.

3. Source material and FGL interpretation are different things

FGL should distinguish what an authoritative source states from the interpretation, explanation or professional lesson drawn by FGL. Where the law, evidence or professional interpretation is unsettled, the uncertainty should be stated rather than concealed.

4. Case briefs and disputed matters

Case coverage should distinguish allegations, submissions, findings, settlements, admissions, convictions, regulatory conclusions and FGL commentary. A dispute should not be described as finally determined when an appeal, review or other material procedural step remains open.

5. Human editorial responsibility

Publication authority remains with a human editor. Drafting, research organisation, comparison, coding or other production tasks may be assisted by digital or AI tools, but those tools are not treated as authorities and their output is not a substitute for source verification, professional judgement or human review.

6. Expertise and author descriptions

FGL does not use unsupported expert, specialist or professional-designation claims. Author biographies should state actual education, qualifications completed or in progress, and relevant areas of work experience without implying credentials that have not been earned.

7. Practical tools and calculations

Calculators, spreadsheets, templates, code and workflow examples should identify material assumptions and, where appropriate, their statutory or technical basis. They should be tested before publication and should not be presented as official determinations, filings or professional advice.

8. Jurisdiction, currency and review dates

Technical material should make the applicable jurisdiction and time period clear where those facts matter. Evergreen tax, accounting and regulatory resources should be reviewed when relevant law, standards or administrative practice changes, and important pages should display or record a meaningful review date.

9. Corrections and updates

Material errors should be corrected promptly and transparently. The approach to minor edits, substantive corrections and withdrawn material is explained in the Corrections Policy.

10. Independence and commercial relationships

Editorial conclusions should not be changed to satisfy an advertiser, affiliate partner, software provider, course provider or other commercial relationship. Sponsored or affiliate relationships, if introduced, should be disclosed clearly where they could affect a reader's understanding of the content.

11. Educational boundary

FGL content is educational and informational. It does not create a professional engagement and does not replace advice based on a reader's specific facts. See the Disclaimer & Terms of Use.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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...

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

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...

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

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...