Principle of Source vs. Residence in Cross-Border Income Taxation

Case study: HP Gauff Ingenieure Gmbh & Company KG v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Income Tax Appeal E078 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 14866 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (23 October 2025) (Judgment)

Core Legal Dispute

The central issue was whether HPGK, a non-resident foreign company with no permanent establishment in Kenya, was liable to pay Corporate Income Tax in Kenya on payments it received for engineering consultancy services provided to a Kenyan state corporation (Geothermal Development Company – GDC). The dispute hinged on the interpretation of the source of income and the application of the Kenya-Germany Double Taxation Agreement (DTA).

Background Facts

• HPGK, a German firm, entered a contract with GDC to provide consultancy services for a geothermal project in Kenya.
• The services were predominantly rendered outside Kenya (from Germany), with only minor, incidental activities (like brief site visits) occurring within Kenya.
• KRA assessed HPGK for Corporate Income Tax on the entire payment from GDC, arguing that the income had a source in Kenya.
• HPGK objected, but KRA confirmed the assessment. HPGK then appealed to the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT).
• The TAT delivered a split decision (2-1), with the majority dismissing HPGK’s appeal. HPGK subsequently appealed to the High Court.

Key Legal Issues for the High Court’s Determination

• Whether the income earned by HPGK from the contract with GDC was sourced from Kenya and therefore subject to Kenyan income tax under the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the provisions of the Kenya-Germany Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) prevailed over the domestic Income Tax Act in determining HPGK’s tax liability.
• Whether HPGK had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in Kenya, which would grant Kenya the primary right to tax the business profits.

The High Court’s Analysis and Findings

The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal. Its reasoning is summarized below:

• On the Source of Income: The Court analyzed Section 3(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, which deems income from a business to be sourced in Kenya if it is “accruing in or derived from Kenya.” The Court adopted a “substance over form” approach, focusing on where the contract was substantially performed. Since the core engineering and consultancy work was performed in Germany, the income’s source was primarily Germany. The minor, incidental activities in Kenya were not sufficient to establish Kenya as the source of the income for the entire contract sum.
• On the Application of the Double Taxation Agreement (DTA): This was the pivotal point. The Court affirmed the principle that where a DTA exists, it prevails over domestic law to prevent double taxation. The Kenya-Germany DTA allocates taxing rights between the two countries. Under Article 7 of the DTA, business profits of a German enterprise are taxable only in Germany unless the enterprise carries on business in Kenya through a Permanent Establishment (PE) there.
• On the Existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE): The Court found that HPGK did not have a Permanent Establishment in Kenya. HPGK had no fixed place of business, no dependent agent, and its employees’ presence in Kenya was limited to short-term, project-related visits that did not meet the DTA’s threshold for creating a PE (e.g., a construction PE typically requires activities to last more than 12 months). Therefore, the exception in Article 7 of the DTA did not apply.

The Final Decision

The High Court set aside the decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal and allowed HPGK’s appeal. The Court made the following specific orders:

1. The income earned by HPGK from its contract with GDC was not liable to Kenyan Corporate Income Tax.
2. KRA’s tax assessment against HPGK was invalid and was consequently vacated.
3. Any taxes already paid by HPGK under protest were to be refunded.

You Can Book Consultation with me through

https://cal.com/hisibati/consulting-session