Kenya: Taxation measures in 2010/11 budget
Description
The following tax measures were proposed in the 2010/11 budget speech read on 10 June 2010.
i. Decrease in the rate of duty on wheat grain from 35% to 10% for a year.
ii. Decrease in rate of duty on all imported rice from 75% or US$200 per ton, whichever is higher, to 35% for one year.
The above measures are to enable millers import wheat grain and rice to supplement local production.
iii. Exemption from import duty of parent stock for chicken breeding.
To encourage the growth of industries for faster development, the following measures are proposed:
iv. Increase in import duty on aluminium conductors and cables from 10% to 25%, to encourage contractors source the products locally and promote local manufacturing of the products.
v. Removal of import duty on flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel coated or plated with tin used by local iron and steel industries and for the manufacture of filters and bottle tops.
vi. Removal of import duty on petroleum coke, a raw material used in the production of cement.
vii. Removal of import duty on prepared driers and pigments for the manufacture of paints.
viii. Removal of import duty on lamps and bulbs using light emitting diode (LED) technology.
To ensure fairness and equity in the tax system;
ix. Increase in excise duties on malt beer from Ksh.54 per litre to Ksh.65 per litre. This is because excise duties on these products are specific and the duty has tended to lag behind price adjustments. Higher taxes have not been imposed for the past 5 years.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
Rate of duty on rice and wheat grain were reduced for one year only.
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | Don't Know |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | Don't Know |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | Don't Know |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered: 11/06/2010
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 10 Jun 2010
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
Ministry of Finance. 'Budget Speech for the fiscal year 2010/2011.' pages 28 & 29, http://www.treasury.go.ke/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=...
Government Response:
- 349 reads
