Ghana Tax Citator

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 2 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 2 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 11 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 3 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 2 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 22 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 13 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 2 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 4 TaxLawGH guides. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

This authority is cited across 1 TaxLawGH guide. Use the related guide to see the rule in context, including amendments, effective dates, calculations and compliance consequences.

A free-zone enterprise remained subject to the free-zone-specific 15% corporate rate after its tax holiday; the general 8% export rate did not displace that provision on these facts.

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.

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.

On the evidence, gold-forward losses were integrated with Perseus's mining business and the counterparties and contractual royalty recipient were independent parties.

The Supreme Court dismissed GRA's appeal as a nullity because an administrative-origin appeal required special leave; it did not decide the tax merits.

The Supreme Court upheld the 30% payment condition for a tax objection and construed the court rule as yielding to the parent Act, avoiding a duplicate payment barrier.

Later correspondence did not restart the statutory appeal period after GRA's objection decision; the Court of Appeal treated the tax appeal as out of time.

The High Court upheld VAT apportionment for imported services supporting taxable telecom and exempt mobile-money activities, and treated the 2018 NHIL/GETFund levies as distinct non-creditable levies.

The High Court dismissed Unilever's appeal for want of jurisdiction because leave to appeal out of time was void; it did not decide the transfer-pricing merits.

GRA's written refusal of a tax refund was a tax decision that had to pass through the statutory objection and appeal route before supervisory relief was sought.

The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to integrating the former customs service into the GRA; it was not a taxpayer-assessment case.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal-rule payment provision but made it yield to the parent revenue statute, preventing a second payment after statutory compliance.

In a constitutional reference arising from a tax appeal, the Supreme Court addressed the compatibility and operation of statutory and procedural payment conditions.

The Supreme Court rejected a broad constitutional challenge to Act 915, including attacks on the Commissioner-General's administrative powers, tax penalties and the taxpayer's civil burden of proof.

The Supreme Court held that an objection decision cannot be challenged by serial objections and that later administrative correspondence did not restart the appeal period.

The Court of Appeal treated Beiersdorf's appeal as competent and allowed its royalty deduction under Act 896, while preserving withholding tax on the payments.

The Court of Appeal held that Fan Milk's month-end volume incentives were commissions to sales agents, not cash discounts, and therefore attracted withholding tax.

The High Court upheld GRA's adjustment of Eaton Towers' Vodafone tower arrangement after finding that the structure and pricing supported the avoidance assessment.

A GRA garnishment notice was null because the taxpayer had not first been served with the assessment and afforded the statutory process and natural justice.

Under repealed SMCD 5, subscription receipts invested at interest remained business income and qualifying television-business expenses were deductible from the aggregate.

The High Court upheld VAT on Ambassador Heights subleases after treating QG as an estate developer and finding its dwelling exemption and adjustment errors unproved.

The High Court held that one telecom operator was not another's consumer or subscriber and excluded interconnect charges from CST under the then Act 754.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that Orica's manufacture, transport and delivery of explosives formed one business and upheld authenticated photocopied VAT relief orders.

The Court of Appeal held that admitted excess VAT had to be refunded under Act 915 and allowed mandamus; GRA could not indefinitely retain it as a credit.

The High Court annulled an unserved assessment, rejected GRA's self-help collection and 30% late-filing penalty, and permitted a lawful fresh assessment.

The High Court held that the purchaser was the statutory withholding agent for gold payments, but dismissed its recovery claim because it proved neither the alleged private arrangement nor payment of the recoverable principal tax to GRA.

The High Court awarded Kenashmi the proved value of four tomato-paste containers after finding that GRA entertained the valuation objection yet allocated or auctioned the goods before the required publication and without proof that they were returned.

In an interlocutory criminal-tax ruling, the High Court rejected the third accused's no-case submission and called for his defence. It found only a prima facie case; it did not convict him or finally determine guilt.

The High Court held that a Burkina Faso-bound transit container became abandoned after the restored transit period expired, that gazetting supplied the required auction notice, and that warehouse-related payments did not change the customs procedure.

The Supreme Court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed a challenge over taxes on menstrual-hygiene products because no real constitutional interpretation or enforcement issue had been established. The tax merits were not finally determined.

The Supreme Court dismissed two consolidated customs claims: the importer was bound by its written duty-settlement agreement, and it proved neither actionable duress nor customs negligence.

The High Court refused mandamus compelling an immediate cash refund of excess VAT.

The High Court rejected most of Maersk's requested declarations but held that GRA could not impose income tax outside the petroleum fiscal framework applicable to the OCTP project.

The High Court upheld GRA's revised assessment, including the denial of royalty deductions under an unregistered technology-transfer arrangement and withholding on reimbursements and claimed discounts.

The Court dismissed a judicial-review challenge to GRA's third-party debtor notice.

The Court held that a taxpayer cannot challenge an assessment and associated bank recovery by ordinary writ while bypassing the objection and appeal route in Act 915.

The High Court held that a 2014 private ruling continued to protect qualifying pre-revocation petroleum sub-subcontract arrangements and rejected withholding and PAYE treatment for the relevant manpower/service payments.

The Court of Appeal largely preserved the High Court's protection of qualifying arrangements under GRA's private ruling and the PAYE conclusion, but it set aside the independent-auditor/reconciliation order as an impermissible post-judgment delegation.

The Supreme Court struck down the provisions that conditioned access to the courts on possession of a taxpayer identification number.

The Supreme Court held that private ownership did not by itself prevent a school from being of a public character.

The Court upheld withholding on trademark, accrual and 2017 incentive items, but reversed extra salary withholding, the 2018 incentive adjustment and VAT/levies on exported support services.

The High Court held that Fan Milk's distributors were agents and that month-end volume payments were commissions, not cash discounts.

The Court upheld application of the VAT Flat Rate Scheme to importers who sold goods locally as wholesalers or retailers and rejected the discrimination challenge.

The High Court refused human-rights and mandamus relief because the substance was a contested tax dispute requiring the prescribed procedure and factual adjudication.

The Court held that an employee who proves qualifying mortgage-interest payments on a sole residence can receive the statutory deduction through employer payroll cash payments rather than waiting for an annual return.

The Court held that Meridian's parliamentary tax exemption took effect when Parliament approved it on 7 June 2016.

The Court treated Orica's explosive manufacture, storage, transport and delivery as one integrated business qualifying for the manufacturing location incentive.

The High Court upheld GRA's treatment of related-party gold forward-sale arrangements and rejected deductions for hedging or investment losses against mining business income.

The Court upheld accrual of demurrage commission and interest from the original due date, but reversed PAYE on a general staff lunch, VAT on exempt money-collection services and a penalty-related adjustment.

The Court held that the taxpayer had not exhausted the statutory appeal route and dismissed most judicial-review relief.

The Court dismissed judicial review of GRA's objection decision and garnishment.

The High Court struck out Seadrill's appeal as out of time. The valid objection decision was the December 2020 decision; continued correspondence and a later payment letter did not create a new objection decision or restart time.

07 National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy assessment. Act 915 required a tax appeal, so the writ did not properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction and the merits were not reached.

The Court refused judicial review of GRA's decision not to waive the 30% objection payment.

The Court refused an interlocutory injunction against alleged preferential customs benchmark values.

The Court extended Unilever's appeal time because the operative objection decision was issued on 19 March 2020 and the COVID-19 lockdown interrupted the remaining filing period.

The Court reversed withholding assessments on payments to foreign carriers for international interconnect and roaming services.