MAERSK DRILLSHIP IV SINGAPORE PTE LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL, GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY
April 2, 2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SACKEY TORKORNOO (MRS.) C.J(PRESIDING)
- AMADU JSC
- ASIEDU JSC
- GAEWU JSC
- DARKO ASARE JSC
April 2, 2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
My Lords, the instant appeal has arisen out of a dispute over the assessment and imposition of tax from petroleum operations. In its simplest definition, tax is a compulsory levy imposed by the State on an individual or an entity for public purposes. The taxman and the taxpayer are two persons of significant interest to the State. Their common point of interest, is income generation or revenue for the State. While the taxpayer is expected to contribute to the development of the State through the payment of specified taxes, the taxman is enjoined to pursue the taxpayer to ensure compliance with tax obligations, albeit within specially structured and regulated mechanisms provided by law.
Tax law is one area of law where enforcement and interpretation of regulatory provisions command strict construction. Under our constitutional and legislative regimes, unless the legislature or such other person empowered by the Constitution and relevant statute sanctions the payment of taxes, or exemptions from payment, no person can deviate nor evade compliance. Any deviation or evasion will attract enforcement and potential sanctions as provided by regulating statutes. Therefore, in any adjudication regarding issues of tax, the adjudicator must confine himself to the law which imposes or dispenses with the element of tax. Upon ascertainment, the statute must be strictly construed and enforced.
Baring the abuse of the rights of individuals regarding tax obligations, as well as the attempt by persons to evade their tax obligations, the legislature has carefully delineated a legislative framework to address compliance. What this simply means is that, the tax officer does not wield unregulated power in the administration and enforcement of tax laws. The powers invested in the officer are statutorily and procedurally limited, and hence, any unfair application inconsistent with due process must not be countenanced.
At the heart of the instant appeal therefore, is an invitation to this court to balance two cardinal principles of tax and investment law. First, that tax can only be imposed or waived under a legislative fiat and second the principle of pacta sunt servanda as pertains to Petroleum Agreements. How does the court balance a Petroleum Agreement ratified by Parliament which contains a stability claus
AI Generated Summary
Maersk Drillship IV Singapore PTE Limited, a Singapore-incorporated company registered in Ghana as an external company, subcontracted with ENI Ghana Exploration & Production to provide drilling services in the OCTP contract area. After a 2018 audit, the Ghana Revenue Authority assessed US$28.36 million in taxes (including corporate income tax and branch profit tax) for 2015–2018. The High Court largely declined relief but barred income tax outside the Petroleum Agreement; the Court of Appeal dismissed Maersk’s appeal and partly granted GRA’s cross-appeal. On further appeal, the Supreme Court, per Tanko Amadu JSC, strictly applied Article 12 and Article 26.2 of the Petroleum Agreement’s stabilization (freezing) clause and the petroleum-specific tax law (PNDCL 188), recognizing Maersk as a privy beneficiary. It held that only the agreed 5% withholding tax applies, and extinguished branch profit tax and additional corporate income tax under Act 896/Act 592, ordering revised assessments and refunds. Asiedu JSC concurred; the Chief Justice dissented, favoring application of general tax laws to repatriated profits.