TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Maersk Drillship IV Singapore v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
A 3–2 Supreme Court majority enforced the project-specific petroleum agreement and treated the 5% withholding as final for Maersk's covered drilling income.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Supreme Court authority for this agreement and taxpayer. Apply cautiously: verify the exact petroleum agreement, ratification, beneficiary language, service relationship and fiscal-stability text before drawing any analogy.
Parties
- appellant: Maersk Drillship IV Singapore Pte Ltd
- respondent: Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
Tax topics
- Petroleum taxation
- Withholding tax
- Fiscal stability
- Treaty and agreement interpretation
Material facts
- Maersk performed drilling services for the OCTP petroleum project. The dispute concerned whether the project's ratified petroleum agreement and fiscal-stability framework extended to Maersk's covered services.
- GRA assessed corporate and branch profit liabilities beyond the 5% withholding already suffered.
Questions before the court
- Whether Maersk was a beneficiary of the project-specific petroleum agreement and fiscal terms.
- Whether the 5% withholding was the final tax on the covered income or only a credit against ordinary corporate and branch liabilities.
What the court held
- The majority held that Maersk fell within the project-specific fiscal arrangement and that the 5% withholding governed the covered payments.
- The additional corporate and branch assessments could not stand against the agreement as construed by the majority.
Ratio decidendi
A ratified, project-specific petroleum agreement and its fiscal-stability terms must be given effect for a contractor shown to fall within their protected class. The result depends on the wording, project relationship and evidence in this agreement; it is not a blanket exemption for petroleum subcontractors.
Obiter
- Broader observations about stability and state commitments must be read in the setting of the particular ratified agreement.
Order
Court of Appeal outcome set aside; the assessments were revised consistently with final 5% withholding treatment, with consequential refund or credit relief.
Separate opinions
Two justices dissented. The case must be cited as a divided 3–2 decision; the dissent is not the ratio.
Procedural history
High Court judgment on 19 October 2022; Court of Appeal judgment on 19 October 2023; Supreme Court final appeal decided on 2 April 2025.
Later treatment
No later disposition was identified in the sources checked for the legal review completed on 18 July 2026. This is not proof that no later or unpublished order exists.
Current-law relevance
Supreme Court authority for this agreement and taxpayer. Apply cautiously: verify the exact petroleum agreement, ratification, beneficiary language, service relationship and fiscal-stability text before drawing any analogy.
Legislation considered
- Constitution, 1992
- Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896)
- OCTP Petroleum Agreement and fiscal-stability provisions
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
- Supreme Court decided Maersk Drillship IV Singapore v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority on 2025-04-02.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: 2015–2017.
- The recorded procedural path is: High Court judgment on 19 October 2022; Court of Appeal judgment on 19 October 2023; Supreme Court final appeal decided on 2 April 2025.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- Maersk performed drilling services for the OCTP petroleum project. The dispute concerned whether the project's ratified petroleum agreement and fiscal-stability framework extended to Maersk's covered services.
- GRA assessed corporate and branch profit liabilities beyond the 5% withholding already suffered.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether Maersk was a beneficiary of the project-specific petroleum agreement and fiscal terms.
- Whether the 5% withholding was the final tax on the covered income or only a credit against ordinary corporate and branch liabilities.
Holding, ratio and scope
- The majority held that Maersk fell within the project-specific fiscal arrangement and that the 5% withholding governed the covered payments.
- The additional corporate and branch assessments could not stand against the agreement as construed by the majority.
- Ratio decidendi: A ratified, project-specific petroleum agreement and its fiscal-stability terms must be given effect for a contractor shown to fall within their protected class. The result depends on the wording, project relationship and evidence in this agreement; it is not a blanket exemption for petroleum subcontractors.
- The holding is bounded by the issues, proved facts, statutory period and court level recorded in this brief. It should not be converted into a broader rule than the court needed to decide the appeal.
Order, remedy and separate reasons
- Formal order: Court of Appeal outcome set aside; the assessments were revised consistently with final 5% withholding treatment, with consequential refund or credit relief.
- Separate opinions: Two justices dissented. The case must be cited as a divided 3–2 decision; the dissent is not the ratio.
- Obiter: Broader observations about stability and state commitments must be read in the setting of the particular ratified agreement.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Constitution, 1992; Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896); OCTP Petroleum Agreement and fiscal-stability provisions.
- 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
- No later disposition was identified in the sources checked for the legal review completed on 18 July 2026. This is not proof that no later or unpublished order exists.
- Supreme Court authority for this agreement and taxpayer. Apply cautiously: verify the exact petroleum agreement, ratification, beneficiary language, service relationship and fiscal-stability text before drawing any analogy.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: Ghana petroleum taxation, Fiscal stability clauses, 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: Supreme Court; No later disposition was identified in the sources checked for the legal review completed on 18 July 2026. This is not proof that no later or unpublished order exists.
- 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 Constitution, 1992 and Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896).
- 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, Fiscal stability clauses, 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.