Why has URA ignored tax importers' pleas?
Sep 23, 2010
EDITOR: The Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) in May scrapped Method I, an international practice of allocating taxes on goods and replaced it with Method 3 where they set the guidelines for paying taxes.
EDITOR: The Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) in May scrapped Method I, an international practice of allocating taxes on goods and replaced it with Method 3 where they set the guidelines for paying taxes.
The pleas of car importers were not heard despite URA setting higher values than those actually in force in Japan. Another disturbing issue is that four months after Method I was abolished, a number of cars still do not appear on their indicative lists to date!
As an importer, it bothers me so much to show up with a car at Malaba and because the values are not on the indicative value lists, I am forced to pay much higher taxes despite providing all the evidence of my cost of the car, insurance and freight charges (CIF).
Cars on the lists manufactured after the year 2000 have very high CIF values not putting into consideration the mileage and condition of the car, among other factors. My advice to the URA is if they are to use Method 3, they should include all cars on the list. I wonder if this list will be revised soon.
Prices on the global market are falling but the list is not comprehensive yet. Secondly, not all cars manufactured after 2000 are necessarily expensive. Cars like Toyota Vitz, Runx and FunCargo, among others, can be got for a CIF under $2000.
These cars are over 10 years old and are bought when they have been used but surprisingly the URA puts taxes on all these cars at a CIF cost of $2500 and above! URA ought to put all these factors into consideration.
Frustrated Taxpayer
The pleas of car importers were not heard despite URA setting higher values than those actually in force in Japan. Another disturbing issue is that four months after Method I was abolished, a number of cars still do not appear on their indicative lists to date!
As an importer, it bothers me so much to show up with a car at Malaba and because the values are not on the indicative value lists, I am forced to pay much higher taxes despite providing all the evidence of my cost of the car, insurance and freight charges (CIF).
Cars on the lists manufactured after the year 2000 have very high CIF values not putting into consideration the mileage and condition of the car, among other factors. My advice to the URA is if they are to use Method 3, they should include all cars on the list. I wonder if this list will be revised soon.
Prices on the global market are falling but the list is not comprehensive yet. Secondly, not all cars manufactured after 2000 are necessarily expensive. Cars like Toyota Vitz, Runx and FunCargo, among others, can be got for a CIF under $2000.
These cars are over 10 years old and are bought when they have been used but surprisingly the URA puts taxes on all these cars at a CIF cost of $2500 and above! URA ought to put all these factors into consideration.
Frustrated Taxpayer