In 2015, the OECD gave the world a template to address base erosion and profit shifting and ensure that profit is taxed in the jurisdiction of value addition and / or where economic activities take place. The world's jurisdictions then embarked on implementing the template. Examining the legal framework subsequently put in place for the taxation of intangibles in Nigeria, this article argues that the distinct regimes for connected and unconnected persons’ transactions create flaws. It further asserts that these flaws are consequences of the conflict between the policy that underpins the legal framework and other policies in the country. It concludes that the legal framework may not be a “Swiss army knife” (providing Nigeria with all that is needed to combat transfer pricing issues associated with the transfer of intangibles by connected persons), as it creates issues that have undesired consequences for the taxation as well as the economic system.

Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the value added at each stage of the production and distribution process and on the importation of goods. VAT registered importers in Uganda are charged the statutory VAT rate of 18 per cent, however, importers that are not VAT registered are charged both the 18 per cent and an additional 15 per cent, which is designated “Domestic VAT”. The statutory basis of the 15 per cent is unclear. Domestic VAT appears to be a tax created by the Uganda Revenue Authority in a bid to raise revenue from a largely non-compliant base. The legality of the tax was challenged in Margaret Akiiki Rwaheru and 13,945 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority. The court ruled that Domestic VAT was irregular when applied to importers who qualified to register for VAT but had not registered, but was illegal when applied to importers who did not qualify to register for VAT. Despite this ruling, the URA has continued to charge all importers Domestic VAT, regardless of whether they qualify to register for VAT. This article seeks to re-examine the legality of Domestic VAT.

Nigeria's Court of Appeal held in Shell v Federal Inland Revenue Service (Shell v FIRS) that only Nigerian enrolled legal practitioners can sign processes for arbitration proceedings in Nigeria. Foreign qualified legal practitioners (FQLP) not enrolled in Nigeria are excluded. Arguably, this limitation extends to the conduct of the parties’ cases and excludes FQLP from appointment as arbitrators where the arbitration agreement specifies that arbitrators be legal practitioners. Shell v FIRS however, contrasts with Stabilini Visinoni v Mallinson, in which the same Court of Appeal had emphasized the flexibility of the arbitral process (which typifies judicial policy in any arbitration-friendly jurisdiction), particularly recognizing that arbitration practice is open to lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Consequently, this note recommends that Nigeria's Arbitration Act be amended to allow for representation by “persons” of the parties’ choice, mirroring the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration 2013 and article 5 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010.