A taxpayer can pay the exact amount agreed as principal tax and still discover years later that the tax ledger shows principal outstanding and interest continuing to accumulate. That problem sat at the centre of CARE International in Uganda v Uganda Revenue Authority , TAT Application No. 353 of 2025, decided by Uganda's Tax Appeals Tribunal on 7 September 2026. The ruling is important for finance and tax teams because it moves the discussion beyond whether tax was paid. It asks the next control question: how was the payment actually allocated on the taxpayer's ledger? FGL takeaway: Paying a tax assessment is not the final control. The payment must also be reconciled to the tax authority's ledger, including how the amount was split between principal tax, penal tax and interest. The dispute in brief CARE International in Uganda is a non-profit international organisation involved in humanitarian activities and emergency response. The underly...

On 7 September 2026, the Uganda Revenue Authority published the compliance risks that will receive particular attention under its Compliance Improvement Plan for the 2026/27 financial year. The notice lists 22 risk areas covering inventory, excise duty, exports, sales, expenses, payroll, withholding tax, EFRIS, Digital Tax Stamps and related-party transactions. The practical response is to review the links between your accounting records, tax returns and operational systems before URA asks for an explanation. Do not force every record to match. Identify genuine errors, correct them through the proper process, and document valid timing, classification or system differences. This article explains what URA has announced and sets out a practical readiness programme for finance teams, tax managers and business owners. It does not assume that every organisation will face an audit or that every variance represents unpaid tax. What URA Actually Announced URA says the FY 2026/27 ...

Jurisdiction: Uganda · Topic: Taxpayer identification · FGL review: September 2026 Uganda's taxpayer-identification framework changed in 2025. For tax-law purposes, an individual's National Identification Number (NIN) and a non-individual's Uganda Registration Services Bureau registration number are now used as tax identification numbers. At the same time, URA is still operating legacy TIN services while it integrates NIN, BRN and TIN records. That distinction matters. The legal identifier has changed, but taxpayers should not assume that every existing URA process, account reference or historic TIN has disappeared overnight. What the law changed The Tax Procedures Code (Amendment) Act, 2025 substituted section 4 of the Tax Procedures Code Act. For tax purposes, it provides that: an individual's NIN issued under Uganda's national identification system is used as the tax identification number; a registration number issued by URSB is used for a non-indivi...

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...