TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Maersk Drillship IV Singapore Pte Ltd v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
The Court of Appeal sustained tax on profits attributed to Maersk's Ghana permanent establishment, but this result was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2025.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Do not rely on this decision as the current outcome of the Maersk dispute. It remains useful only for understanding the rejected lower-court reasoning and procedural history.
Parties
- appellant: Maersk Drillship IV Singapore
- respondent: Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
Tax topics
- Petroleum taxation
- Corporate income tax
- Branch profit tax
- Withholding tax
Material facts
- Maersk supplied drilling services for the OCTP petroleum project and operated in Ghana through an external-company registration and permanent establishment.
- Payments suffered 5% withholding. GRA nevertheless assessed additional corporate income and branch profit liabilities on profits attributed to the Ghana operations.
Questions before the court
- Whether the petroleum agreement and its fiscal terms made the 5% withholding final for Maersk.
- Whether section 60 of Act 896 supported additional assessment of profits of the Ghana permanent establishment and repatriated branch profits.
What the court held
- The Court of Appeal held that Maersk had not established that the petroleum agreement exempted its parent enterprise from the additional assessments.
- It treated the Ghana permanent-establishment profits and repatriations as assessable under Act 896.
Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal read the taxpayer's position through the ordinary permanent-establishment and branch-profit rules because it did not accept that the project agreement conferred the claimed final-withholding treatment on Maersk.
Order
Maersk's appeal dismissed; the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal partly allowed and the High Court orders varied.
Separate opinions
None recorded in the reviewed Court of Appeal judgment.
Procedural history
The High Court delivered judgment on 19 October 2022. The Court of Appeal decided the appeal and cross-appeal on 19 October 2023. The Supreme Court set aside the dispositive result on 2 April 2025.
Later treatment
Overturned by Maersk Drillship IV Singapore v Commissioner-General, (2 April 2025), by a 3–2 Supreme Court majority.
Current-law relevance
Do not rely on this decision as the current outcome of the Maersk dispute. It remains useful only for understanding the rejected lower-court reasoning and procedural history.
Legislation considered
- Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), section 60
- OCTP Petroleum Agreement and fiscal terms
MSL Business School research layer
Detailed TaxLawGH analysis
A structured reading of the verified facts, issues, reasoning, result, later treatment and limits of the decision.
Decision identity and litigation posture
- Court of Appeal decided Maersk Drillship IV Singapore Pte Ltd v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority on 2023-10-19.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: 2015–2017.
- The recorded procedural path is: The High Court delivered judgment on 19 October 2022. The Court of Appeal decided the appeal and cross-appeal on 19 October 2023. The Supreme Court set aside the dispositive result on 2 April 2025.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- Maersk supplied drilling services for the OCTP petroleum project and operated in Ghana through an external-company registration and permanent establishment.
- Payments suffered 5% withholding. GRA nevertheless assessed additional corporate income and branch profit liabilities on profits attributed to the Ghana operations.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether the petroleum agreement and its fiscal terms made the 5% withholding final for Maersk.
- Whether section 60 of Act 896 supported additional assessment of profits of the Ghana permanent establishment and repatriated branch profits.
Holding, ratio and scope
- The Court of Appeal held that Maersk had not established that the petroleum agreement exempted its parent enterprise from the additional assessments.
- It treated the Ghana permanent-establishment profits and repatriations as assessable under Act 896.
- Ratio decidendi: The Court of Appeal read the taxpayer's position through the ordinary permanent-establishment and branch-profit rules because it did not accept that the project agreement conferred the claimed final-withholding treatment on Maersk.
- This decision has been overturned. It is included to explain the litigation path and the reasoning rejected on further appeal, not as the current dispositive authority.
Order, remedy and separate reasons
- Formal order: Maersk's appeal dismissed; the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal partly allowed and the High Court orders varied.
- Separate opinions: None recorded in the reviewed Court of Appeal judgment.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), section 60; OCTP Petroleum Agreement and fiscal terms.
- The decision must be matched to the legislation and tax period actually before the court, rather than treated as a free-standing statement of current rates or procedure.
Later treatment and present-day use
- Overturned by Maersk Drillship IV Singapore v Commissioner-General, (2 April 2025), by a 3–2 Supreme Court majority.
- Do not rely on this decision as the current outcome of the Maersk dispute. It remains useful only for understanding the rejected lower-court reasoning and procedural history.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: Ghana petroleum taxation, Permanent establishments, Withholding tax.
Limits and research caution
- No additional source qualification is required beyond the stated court level, procedural posture, statutory period and limits of the holding.
Practical research points
- Start with the court level and later treatment: Court of Appeal; Overturned by Maersk Drillship IV Singapore v Commissioner-General, (2 April 2025), by a 3–2 Supreme Court majority.
- Match the present facts to the precise issues and ratio rather than relying on the case name or outcome alone.
- Check the governing provisions for the relevant period, especially Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), section 60 and OCTP Petroleum Agreement and fiscal terms.
- Separate the court's binding holding and order from obiter, dissenting reasons and questions the court did not reach.
- Confirm the procedural route, deadline and evidential burden under the law now in force before applying a historical decision.
- Use this case alongside TaxLawGH research on Ghana petroleum taxation, Permanent establishments, Withholding tax.
Institutional publisher
TaxLawGH is the Ghana tax and fiscal-policy knowledge system of MSL Business School.
This case brief forms part of MSL Business School’s maintained legal-research resource for Ghanaian tax law.