Multichoice Nigeria Limited (MCN) claims it has complied with the tax appeal tribunal’s (TAT) directions by depositing an “amount required by law” with the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).
The company asserted this at the resumption of the tribunal hearing over the alleged US$ 4.3 billion tax evasion dispute. Multichoice is the owner of major subscription-based platforms in Nigeria, DStv and Gotv, and satellite televisions. At the hearing, MultiChoice Nigeria Limited’s counsel stated that the company had paid US$ 19.4 million in two instalments to the FIRS account as directed by the tribunal under the FIRS Act.
Before filing an appeal, an appellant must pay 50 per cent of the tax paid the previous year plus a 10 per cent mark-up as security, according to paragraph 15(7)(c) of the fifth schedule of the FIRS Act, 2007. As a result, at the last hearing, the TAT upheld the FIRS motion and ordered Multichoice Nigeria Limited to deposit with the FIRS an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the assessment under the appeal plus a sum equal to 10 per cent of the deposit as a condition precedent for the appeal to be heard again. The instruction, which compelled the corporation to pay half of the disputed sum (US$2.18 billion) under assessment, perplexed stakeholders.
MultiChoice told the tribunal that it made a sworn declaration of compliance “under oath on September 9 and again on September 22 2021.”
The counsel contended that the MCN’s affidavit and documents are self-contradictory and of no value on the part of the FIRS. Before hearing the case, the agency sought the administrative court to determine whether MultiChoice had fully complied with the directive.
“We make this submission because, while the appellant has presented certain affidavits purporting to prove that they have cooperated with the tribunal, those documents are self-contradictory and of no value. The appellant has the burden of proving that they followed the tribunal order, according to FIRS.
The FIRS requested that the tribunal order MultiChoice to pay for all prior years under appeal. “We contend that there are ten years in a row; therefore 2010 or 2019 cannot be preceding years to 2011,” it continued.
The tribunal took note of both parties’ arguments and adjourned the matter until October 20, 2021, for a decision, requesting that all parties file appropriate notices before that date.
