After re-possessing Robert Kyagulanyi’s (Bobi Wine) car for re-evaluation, the Ugandan Revenue Authority (URA) has now slammed the opposition leader with Sh10 million (USh337 million) in taxes.
This follows a Kampala court ruling about a week ago where the former presidential aspirant was asked to surrender the bullet-proof Toyota SUV to URA for re-assessment. The taxation body claimed the car had been under evaluated after it was considered as an ordinary car.
“Following the re-examination of your client’s motor vehicle, Toyota Land Cruiser V8 Reg. No. UBJ 667 F, it was confirmed that the unit was armoured. The details of ballistic protection were confirmed as 90 mm for the window upper plate glass and 6 mm for the bottom hull,” argued URA’s letter to Bobi Wine’s lawyers of Wameli & Co. Advocates, that according to Daily Monitor online site.
“It was also established that the declaration made vide Customs reference UGCWH C 54 of February 12, 2021, did bare falsehoods of clearing it as a normal vehicle yet it was armoured contrary to Sections 203 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004,” giving attribution to the said letter, the site wrote.
The tax authority said Bobi Wine’s car is bullet-proof and costs $166,700 (about Sh18 million). The same vehicle had initially been assessed at almost half the amount.
In February this year, the URA wrote to Bobi Wine stating that the car needed re-evaluation. He however challenged the matter in court claiming he would be inconvenienced if he surrendered the car as it was his only means of transport.
The matter went to the High Court in Kampala where the presiding Judge Emmanuel Baguma ruled out Bobi Wine’s claim. He said Bobi Wine had failed to prove that the car was his only means of transport.
“It is, therefore, my considered view that the applicant (Bobi Wine), has not adduced evidence to show that the recalling of the said vehicle for re-verification will cause him irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by award of damages. In the final result, this application is not a proper one to grant a temporary injunction. The application, therefore, fails and it’s hereby dismissed,” the judge ruled.