A Review of Uganda’s Tax Treaties and Recommendations for Action

In June 2014, Uganda announced the temporary cessation of bilateral tax treaty negotiations, and a review of its policy towards such treaties. The main effect of tax treaties is to divide up the ‘rights’ to tax cross-border investment between the state parties, which reduces the possibility that businesses will incur double taxation; in doing so, it places significant curbs on the ability of capital-importing countries, such as Uganda, to tax foreign investors. Uganda’s review follows decisions by developing countries as diverse as Argentina, Mongolia, Rwanda and Zambia to cancel or renegotiate some of their historical tax treaties. These countries, together with some independent commentators, international and non- governmental organisations, have questioned whether the benefits of tax treaties for developing countries outweigh their costs. In Uganda, as elsewhere, tax treaties have always been surrounded by an investment promotion discourse in political debate, yet there is little convincing evidence that they have had a positive effect on investment flows into low-income countries. In contrast, there are some clear aspects of Uganda’s treaties, such as definitions of ‘permanent establishment’ and rules concerning the taxation of capital gains, which cost Uganda significant revenue and are vulnerable to abusive tax planning. A key problem is that Uganda’s negotiating position has been based on the UN model treaty, which embodies a compromise position, rather than an ideal one to be horse-traded during negotiations. The recent East African Community (EAC) and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) model treaties also represent compromise positions. This paper uses a comparative analysis of treaties signed by Uganda and other neighbouring countries, combined with interviews conducted with government officials and private sector tax advisers, to assess whether Uganda’s network of tax treaties is fit for purpose, and to recommend how it could be improved through the policy review

What Explains the Recent Calls for Reinstatement of a Tax Considered Unpopular? An Analysis of Graduated Tax in Uganda

Successful decentralisation relies heavily on the ability of subnational government to generate its own revenue. In many African countries, subnational government is authorised to collect a variety of taxes and user fees including trade licensing taxes, property taxes, market fees, garbage collection fees and road user fees. With the exception of property taxes, which have the potential to generate significant revenue, most other taxes collectively fund a very small proportion of subnational government budgets. Until recently, one of the main sources of own revenue for subnational government in Uganda was a poll tax known as graduated tax. Tanzania and Kenya had a similar tax, referred to respectively as the development levy and graduated personal tax. However, the tax was abolished in Kenya in 1974, in Tanzania in 2003 and in Uganda in 2005. The reasons for abolishing the tax in the three countries were similar, and included the fact that it relied on coercive enforcement, the costs of collection were quite high and it disproportionately affected the poor. In Uganda, however, there have recently been calls – within and outside government – for the reintroduction of the tax. Our research seeks to answer the question: what explains the calls for the introduction of a tax that was largely unpopular? We find two main explanations. First, graduated tax was the main source of revenue for local government in Uganda and there has been no adequate replacement for it. Second, the tax was a symbol of pride for some men, and encouraged productivity. Women – particularly in rural areas – feel that its abolition reduced the productivity of men.Department for International Development (DFID)Bill and Melinda Gates Foundatio