Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v ICEA Lion General Insurance Company Limited [2025] KEHC 14865 (KLR)
Background
- This appeal arose from a compliance audit conducted by KRA on ICEA Lion General Insurance Company Limited.
- Following the audit, KRA issued a notice of assessment demanding additional taxes comprising of Corporation Tax and Value Added Tax, inclusive of penalties and interest.
- After ADR proceedings at the Tax Appeals Tribunal, the parties settled the Corporation Tax component.
- The sole remaining issue was whether VAT is chargeable on the disposal of salvaged motor vehicles by the insurer.
- The Tax Appeals Tribunal ruled in favor of the insurer finding that salvage disposal constitutes part of the insurance business and falls within the VAT exemption.
- KRA dissatisfied with the decision, appealed this decision to the High Court.
KRA’s Argument
KRA’s case rested on a strict, literal interpretation of the VAT Act:
- KRA argued on the separate transaction theory arguing that the sale of salvaged vehicles is a distinct, independent transaction from the insurance service itself.
- KRA averred that proceeds from salvage sales should be treated as taxable income to the insurer, not as compensation or cost recovery.
- KRA argued that tax exemptions must be narrowly construed and cannot be granted by implication arguing that the sale of motor vehicle salvages is not expressly listed in the First Schedule of the VAT Act as an exempt supply.
- KRA argued that there is no room for implied exemption mentioning that unless an exemption is clearly articulated in the statute, the default position is that VAT is chargeable.
- KRA argued that VAT is chargeable on services ancillary to insurance if those services can be separated from the insurance cover itself.
ICEA Lion’s Argument
- ICEA Lion argued that salvage disposal is not a separate line of business but an integral, indivisible component of providing insurance services, which are expressly exempt under Paragraph 2 of Part II of the First Schedule to the VAT Act.
- ICEA Lion averred that the disposal of salvage is not a commercial transaction for profit but a mechanism to reduce loss and give effect to the principle of indemnity.
- ICEA Lion mentioned that the transaction represents loss mitigation and recoupment, not a distinct trading activity.
- ICEA Lion mentioned that salvage disposal, being a direct and necessary consequence of settling a total loss claim, qualifies as an incidental activity as per the Insurers Act .
- ICEA Lion argued that the entire transaction should be viewed as a single economic supply.
High Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed KRA’s appeal and upheld the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s decision ruling that salvage disposal by insurers is exempt from VAT.
The Court applied several interpretive principles to reach this conclusion.
- The Court held that statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read together to discern true legislative intent. The VAT Act and Insurance Act are in pari materia and must be harmonized.
- The Court found that the insurer’s acquisition of salvage is not a commercial purchase the disposal of salvage represents the realization of the insurer’s subrogation rights aimed at reducing loss.
- The Court concluded that “the disposal of the salvage by the ICEA Lion is not an end in itself, but merely a means for ICEA Lion to better enjoy the principal exempt insurance service.
- The Court noted that in accounting practice, salvage proceeds are treated as a reduction of claims expense, not as revenue from sales.
Conclusion
The High Court Decision has significant ramifications for the insurance industry and tax administration in Kenya.
- Insurers can continue disposing of salvage without charging or accounting for output VAT preserving cash flow and eliminating administrative complexity.
- The decision confirms that activities genuinely incidental to an exempt supply retain the exempt status of the principal supply.
- The Court’s acknowledgment that salvage proceeds represent claims cost reduction may influence how similar transactions are characterized for financial reporting and tax purposes.
- KRA cannot rely solely on the absence of explicit exemptions when the economic substance and legal nature of transactions point to exemption.
Recommendation
- Insurance companies should document the legal and operational linkage between its operating activities as seen in the case.
- Taxpayers should analyze whether their business activities could be characterized as “incidental” to exempt supplies.
- Where KRA characterizes transactions based on formal appearance rather than economic substance, this case provides authority to demand a more sophisticated analysis.
The High Court decision is a major game-changer, proving that a deep understanding of the economic substance of your transactions is your most powerful asset against aggressive assessments.
Navigating the gap between a legal victory and your day-to-day compliance requires expert guidance.
At Intelpoint Consulting, Your Tax Lawyers with a Personal Touch, we help our clients not just to comply, but to optimize.
Our team of specialist tax consultants provide
✅VAT Health Checks
✅Proactive KRA Dispute Management
✅Tailored Tax Strategy
Intelpoint Consulting
info@intelpointconsulting.com
+254 714 348 150
www.intelpointconsulting.com
Disclaimer: This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Please contact us to discuss your specific circumstances.