The Ethiopian Tax System - Excesses and Gaps PDF

THE ETHIOPIAN TAX SYSTEM: EXCESSES AND
GAPS
Taddese Lencho∗
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 328

I. PART I .................................................................................................... 330
A. The Federal Arrangement in Ethiopia and Taxing Powers ......... 330
B. Constitutional Limits on Tax Powers ......................................... 334
1. The Principle of Tax Legality ............................................. 335
2. The Principles of Fidelity to Sources of Taxes and Procedural
Fairness .............................................................................. 340
3. Intergovernmental Immunity............................................... 343
4. Principle of Non-Discrimination ........................................ 345
5. Adverse Impact and Benefit Principles ............................... 346
C. The Federal Tax Administration ................................................. 347
II. PART II .................................................................................................. 352
A. The Organization of Tax Laws in Ethiopia................................. 352
B. The Sources of Tax law .............................................................. 356
1. Tax Proclamations and Regulations ................................... 356
2. Tax Directives ..................................................................... 358
3. Advance-rulings .................................................................. 365
4. Administrative Publications, Tax Guides, Tax Forms, and
Public Notices ..................................................................... 369
5. Tax Dispute Settlement: Tax Cases as Sources of Law ...... 372
CONCLUSION AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 378
“Why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddities
now, his quillities, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks?”
–William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1, lines 100-101
∗ Lecturer, Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Law, LL.B (Addis Ababa

University); LL.M (University of Michigan Law School (Ann Arbor); PhD Candidate
(University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa); I am grateful to my colleagues Gedion Timotheos,
Martha Belete, Muradu Abdo, Seyoum Yohannes, Yazachew Belew for their comments on
the earlier drafts of this article; and to professor Jim Bryce, of the University of Alabama, for
his constructive comments on the earlier draft of this article. I would also like to express my
gratitude to the DLA Piper Foundation for availing me with funds to do research on the
Ethiopian tax system in general.
328 Michigan State International Law Review [Vol. 20:2
“… and look at your laws: criminal law, civil law, property law,
commercial law, international law, the law of the sea, law and order, legal
codes, legal books…”
–From ‘Excess’ by Sebhat Gebre-Egziabher, in SEED and

Other Short Stories, Retold by Wendy Kindred, p. 4
INTRODUCTION
In a moment of dismissive hubris, the Ethiopian tax system may be

described as a loose agglomeration of proclamations, regulations, directives,
rules, etc., which despite their loose ends and rough edges, seem to fulfill
the singular purpose for which they are designed, namely raising revenues
for the Ethiopian government. In the face of these loosely connected laws,
one is tempted to conclude like Jacques Vanderlinden did more than forty
years ago about the Ethiopian legal system as a whole: that is, it does not as
yet exist.1 The Ethiopian tax system has not been blessed with the excellent
organization of many of the modern laws of Ethiopia—which (thanks to the
codification project the country undertook in the 1950s and 1960s) were
organized into well-written codes. A system (understood as an orderly
arrangement of rules and institutions) is not the first impression that one
gets out of coming face to face with the dizzying array of taxes scattered
almost haphazardly in so many disparate pieces of legislation.
Luckily, we don’t have to subscribe to impossibly high standards (which
appear to inform the opinions of Professor Vanderlinden) to qualify a given
system as a legal system. If, in the words of John Henry Merryman, a legal
system is understood merely as “an operating set of legal institutions,
procedures and rules,” it is possible to qualify the rules of any sovereign
state as a legal system, regardless of the degree of legal organization
involved and the level of legal development in a given country.2 In a sense,
it is possible to speak in terms not only of a legal system as a whole, but
also parts of that legal system, such as a criminal justice system, a revenue
system, or as this article proposes, a tax system. To the extent it is possible
to detect a hierarchy of institutions, laws, and procedures (however
imperfectly these are understood), it is possible to write about a tax system
1. Jacques Vanderlinden, Civil Law and Common Law Influences on the

Developing Law of Ethiopia, 16 BUFF. L. REV. 250, 256-57 (1966) (denying that the
Ethiopian legal system had yet existed after Ethiopia commissioned some of the most
distinguished jurists at the time to codify its laws—the Penal Code in 1957, the Civil,
Commercial, and Maritime Codes in 1960, the Criminal Procedure Code in 1961 and the
Civil Procedure Code in 1965).
2. JOHN HENRY MERRYMAN, THE CIVIL LAW TRADITION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
LEGAL SYSTEMS OF WESTERN EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA 1-4 (2d ed. 1985);
CONTEMPORARY LEGAL EDUC. SERIES, THE CIVIL LAW TRADITION: EUROPE, LATIN AMERICA,
AND EAST ASIA 3 (1994).
2012] The Ethiopian Tax System 329
like that of Ethiopia without losing sight of the fact that some tax systems
are better organized and more coherent than others. The Ethiopian tax
system has an operating set of legal institutions (such as the parliament, tax
authorities, and tax appeal tribunals and courts), procedures (for assessment,
collection and complaints handling), and rules (the constitution,
proclamations, regulations, directives, etc.).
The modern “Ethiopian tax system” (let’s put it, provisionally, in
quotation marks) is a product of more than half a century of
experimentation in legislation and tax reform. It had neither the grand
lawgiver to guide and direct it from behind nor a clear set of overarching
policies to inform its directions.3 Since its humble beginnings in the 1940s,
the modern Ethiopian tax system has developed and evolved by fits and
starts as the needs for revenue arise, as governments change and as the
economy and international situations shift. Over the course of this period
the Ethiopian tax system went through some major revisions and numerous
piecemeal amendments.4
This article will attempt to show that there is a system behind the
apparently haphazard and disparate pieces of tax legislation of Ethiopia. No
one has ever looked at the Ethiopian tax system as a whole (not as legal
scholars would have liked it anyway) and it is therefore no surprise if the
Ethiopian tax system strikes one as random, disorganized, and incoherent in
places. We are more accustomed to talking (if ever) about income taxes
(even then, of specific income taxes), the value added tax, or customs duties
than of the Ethiopian tax system as a whole.
Since the jurisprudence of Ethiopian taxation is yet to develop fully, this
article will draw upon the comparative experience of some tax systems
elsewhere to illuminate the “gaps” in, and suggest future directions for, the
Ethiopian tax system. Some of the terminologies used in this article are
adopted from other tax systems for heuristic purposes. Due to the paucity of
information on regional tax practice, the article will not deal with taxation at
the regional level, except where federal laws impact the operation of
regional tax systems.5
This article is divided into two parts. Part I of the article will address the
constitutional and administrative issues surrounding the Ethiopian tax
system. The second part will deal with the organization and sources of tax
3. Eshetu Chole, Towards a History of the Fiscal Policy of the Pre-Revolutionary

Ethiopian State: 1941-1974, in ESHETU CHOLE, UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN ETHIOPIA,
ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IN EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA
(OSSREA) 63 (Eshetu Chole ed., 2004) (“[I]t [the Ethiopian tax system] evolved in an ad
hoc basis, in response to specific needs and pressures, i.e., in a planning vacuum.”).
4. The major tax reforms in Ethiopia occurred in the 1940s, in the aftermath of the
Ethiopian revolution of 1974, after the fall of the Derg in 1991 and most recently in the 2002
tax reforms.
5. This is not a significant omission, as the Federal Government has had an
overwhelming influence over the regional tax system, to the extent the latter is said to exist.
laws, including tax dispute settlement schemes in Ethiopia. The article will
end with a conclusion and some recommendations. Through the legal and
institutional arrangements that have made the Ethiopian tax system into
what it is (in spite of the gaps and loose ends), the article aims to draw
attention to the patterns that underlie the Ethiopian tax system.
I. PART I
A. The Federal Arrangement in Ethiopia and Taxing Powers
The fundamental authority to tax is derived from the Constitution of

1995, which, following the federal structure, shares tax powers between the
Federal Government and the Regional States. 6 The Ethiopian Constitution
goes to greater lengths than other areas of power in allocating taxation
powers between the Federal Government and the Regional States.7 The
Constitution classifies taxation powers as “taxes exclusive to the Federal
Government,”8 “taxes exclusive to the Regional States,”9 “taxes concurrent
to both the Federal Government and the Regional States,”10 and “taxes
undesignated.”11
With the exception of customs duties, which are the exclusive preserve
of the Federal Government, most other taxes are sliced into pieces by the
Ethiopian Constitution and shared between the Federal Government and the
Regional States on the basis of certain set formulas. Income taxes on
employment income are, for example, shared on the basis of the identity of
employers so that if an employer is a Federal Government or an
international organization, the Federal Government exercises the power to
impose tax on the employees, and if an employer is a state government or a
private enterprise, state governments get to levy tax on the employees.12 The
Constitution follows similar patterns of tax-power sharing on most other
taxes.13
6. See The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995.

Articles 95-99, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1.
7. On the implications of the specificity of the Ethiopian Constitution, see Taddese
Lencho, Income Tax Assignment Under the Ethiopian Constitution: Issues to Worry About, 4
Mizan L. Rev. 31 (2010).
8. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995.
Articles 95-99, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1 (the Constitution headlines these powers
simply as “federal power of taxation” and “state power of taxation”; the word “exclusive” is
added here to highlight what these powers actually mean).
9. Id. art. 97.
10. Id. art. 98.
11. Id. art. 99. There is an implicit fifth category: a tax designated by the
Constitution but requiring re-designation via an amendment of the Constitution.
12. Id. arts. 96(2), 97(1).
13. Profit taxes are assigned on the basis of the legal status of the business enterprise
subject to profit taxes; similarly, sales taxes appear to be assigned on the basis of the legal
status of the business enterprise collecting sales taxes; taxes on federally owned and
The Ethiopian federal arrangement follows the dual structure in which all
the three branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) co-
exist in respect of the Federal and Regional powers. This, in taxation, means
in principle that both the Federal Government and the Regional States enjoy
full legislative, executive, and judicial powers with respect to taxation
powers reserved to them. In practice, however, the Federal Government has
had the most dominant presence in the legislation of taxation, respecting not
just “federal exclusive taxes” but also “concurrent taxes” and at times even
“regional exclusive taxes.”14 Although Regional States have the prerogative
to issue their own tax laws with respect to tax sources reserved to them by
the Constitution, many of the Regional States for a while used federal tax
laws to levy and collect regional taxes.15 The Regional States did not
immediately exercise their legislative powers of issuing their own tax
legislations. Some of the Regional Governments have begun issuing their
tax legislations recently. However, the exercise of the legislative power over
taxation still remains a formal matter because the Regional Governments
have yet to fully exercise their taxation powers. Many of the Regional States
that have issued their own tax laws have used federal tax laws as models
with the result that there is virtually no difference in substance between
federal tax laws and regional tax laws.16
One of the striking features of the Ethiopian Constitution on matters of
taxation is the unusual specificity and detail of provisions that assign
taxation powers between the Federal Government and the Regional States.
Since the Ethiopian Constitution is unusually concrete and specific in the
area of tax powers, its language in this respect leaves very little room for
argument about which layer of government has what tax powers.
Nonetheless, some issues remain contentious. One is the exercise of
concurrent powers. The Constitution gives out very little as to how the
concurrent tax powers are to be exercised in practice.17 Following the
regional-state-owned enterprises are assigned to the federal and regional states respectively.
See Lencho, supra note 7, at 38-40.
14. Id.
15. See id. at 43-45.
16. This form of tax legislation has created some curious developments in the
Ethiopian Federation, casting doubts over the capacity and the will of the Regional States to
chart their own autonomous course. The only area of tax law where the Regional States have
not copied from federal tax laws is the agricultural income tax laws, presumably because
there is no federal agricultural income tax law—agricultural income taxes are the exclusive
preserve of the Regional States under the Ethiopian Constitution. See The Constitution of the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995, Articles 95-99, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1,
No. 1; see also Deso Chemeda, Agricultural Income Taxation in Oromia (2008) (unpublished
Senior Thesis, Addis Ababa University) (on file with Faculty of Law Library Archives,
Addis Ababa University) (even today, many of the Regions invoke federal tax laws like the
Federal Turnover Tax law of 2002 to collect turnover taxes).
17. SOLOMON NIGUSSIE, FISCAL FEDERALISM IN THE ETHIOPIAN ETHNIC-BASED
FEDERAL SYSTEM 136-37 (2006).
practice of other federal systems, several options may be open to both layers
of the Ethiopian federation.18 The Regional States may impose their own
taxes in addition to the Federal Government taxes. The Regional States may
choose to impose additional tax rates on an otherwise federal tax law. Or the
Regional States may choose to agree with the Federal Government to share
the proceeds of federally collected taxes. In Ethiopia, it is the third option
that prevails, presumably because there is a hint to that effect in Article
62(7) of the Constitution.19 The Federal Government levies and collects
concurrent taxes. The revenues from concurrent taxes are shared on the
basis of a revenue-sharing scheme approved in 2004 by the House of the
Federation (HoF).20
The other contentious area is the meaning of “undesignated taxes.” In the
assignment of expenditure powers, the Ethiopian Constitution follows what
might be described as the principle of residuality, which is stipulated in
Article 52 of the Constitution. All expenditure powers which are not
expressly stated as federal powers or concurrent powers of the Federal
Government and the Regional States are assumed to be reserved as the
powers of the Regional States. This is not the case for taxation powers.
Taxes not designated as “federal exclusive,” “state exclusive” or
“concurrent to both” should be referred to the joint session of the House of
the Federation and the House of Peoples’ Representatives, which shall
18. See 4 ANWAR SHAH, THE PRACTICE OF FISCAL FEDERALISM: COMPARATIVE

PERSPECTIVES 21 (2007).
19. Article 62, sub-article 7, of the Ethiopian Constitution empowers The Federal
House of Federation (HOF) to determine the division of revenues derived from joint Federal
and State sources, which must be the case because the Federal Government collects
joint/concurrent tax sources; See The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia of 1995, Articles 95-99, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1. In this regard, it is also
instructive to review the practice prior to the ratification of the Constitution. During the
transition period (1991-1995), the division of revenues was regulated by a proclamation
issued in 1992; that proclamation has a clear provision regarding the levying and collection
of “joint” or “concurrent” revenues. It provides that ‘joint’ taxes shall be collected by the
central (federal) government and the proceeds distributed among Regional States on the basis
of derivative principles. There is reason to believe that this practice continued unabated after
the Constitution has replaced the proclamation in 1995. See Proclamation to Define the
Sharing of Revenues between the Central Government and the National/Regional Self-
Governments. Article 8(4), Proclamation No. 33/1992, Negarit Gazeta, Year 52, No. 7 (Eth.);
see also Lencho, supra note 7, at 42.
20. The revenue sharing scheme instructs the Federal Government to share with the
Regional States 50% of the proceeds of profit and dividend taxes, 30% of the indirect taxes
and 40% of the mineral taxes; the Federal Government also controversially took over the
administration of VAT (part of which would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the
Regional States) and decided to return the proceeds to the Regional States based on the
sources from which VAT is being collected (i.e., derivative principle). See NIGUSSIE, supra
note 17, at 140, 210.
determine by a two-thirds majority vote on the exercise of powers of

taxation.21
What really constitutes “undesignated” in the world of taxes has been a
subject of some debate in practice. The Ethiopian Constitution refers to
many types of taxes by name. The Ethiopian Constitution may have also
mentioned some taxes in substance but not in name. A case in point is the
value added tax (VAT). VAT is not mentioned in name but in substance (if
we take it to be in the family of sales taxes in general), it is mentioned in
several provisions of the Constitution.22 If we take “undesignated” to mean
literally “unmentioned,” VAT qualifies as an undesignated tax and therefore
falls under Article 99 of the Constitution. When VAT was first proposed as
a new source of tax at the beginning of this century, some members of the
Joint Houses questioned whether VAT was indeed an Article 99 matter or
whether its introduction as a federal tax required the amendment of the
Constitution.23 Apparently, not many put much stock in the merit of those
debates, and when the matter came to the vote, the Joint Houses
unanimously gave the power to impose VAT to the Federal Government
(apparently taking VAT as an undesignated tax).24 But in an apparent U-
turn, the Federal Government later agreed to return to the Regional States
the proceeds of VAT collected from sources reserved to the Regional
States.25 If VAT were a federal tax, as the Joint Houses at first seemed to
think, there would be no need to share the revenues with the Regional
States. The Federal Government could have treated VAT as any of the
federal exclusive taxes and used the proceeds either for its direct budgetary
needs and/or distributed the proceeds in the form of federal grants. The
Federal Government probably realized upon assuming the power to levy
and collect VAT that VAT was not an undesignated tax after all but a
designated tax (as a sales tax) requiring the exercise of power over VAT at
21. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995,

22. Id. arts. 96(1), 96(3), 97(4), 97(7), 98(1). The literature on VAT invariably
classifies VAT as a sales tax. See, e.g., ALAN SCHENK & OLIVER OLDMAN, VALUE ADDED
TAX: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH, WITH MATERIALS AND CASES 24 (2001); JOHN F. DUE &
ANN F. FRIEDLAENDER, GOVERNMENT FINANCE, ECONOMICS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR 404
(2002). At the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1994, VAT was unknown in
Ethiopia and it could not have been mentioned by the drafters by name. At that time,
Ethiopia had a general sales tax law that applied upon manufacturers or producers and
importers of goods and services only, and it is therefore of little surprise that the Constitution
mentions this type of sales tax and not the VAT.
23. See Berhanu Assefa, Undesignated Powers of Taxation in the Distribution of
Fiscal Powers between the Central and State Governments under the FDRE Constitution 59-
60 (2006) (unpublished Senior Thesis, Addis Ababa University) (on file with Faculty of Law
Library Archives, Addis Ababa University).
24. Id. at 60 (VAT was issued as a federal tax law in 2002); See Value Added Tax
Proclamation. Proclamation No. 285, Negarit Gazeta, Year 8, No. 33 (Eth.) [hereinafter VAT
Proclamation].
25. See NIGUSSIE, supra note 17, at 140.
multiple jurisdictions: federal, regional state, and concurrent. In any case,

the decisions reached over the years with respect to the introduction of VAT
illustrate the practical problems arising from characterizing “undesignated-
ness” under the Ethiopian Constitution.
The subject of “undesignated taxes” is not always contentious, however.
There are many clear cases in which the Constitution failed to designate the
power over certain taxes, and the Joint Houses appropriately intervened to
designate these taxes in the exercise of their power under Article 99 of the
Constitution. Excise taxes on private enterprises, income taxes on royalties
from the exercise of copyrights and patents, and income taxes on interest
from bank deposits are not designated in the revenue provisions of the
Constitution. The Joint Houses met and designated excise taxes on private
enterprises as “concurrent taxes,” income taxes on interest accruing from
bank deposits as “federal taxes,” income taxes on royalties derived by
individuals as “regional taxes,” and income taxes on royalties derived by
enterprises as “concurrent taxes.”26 Since none of these taxes could be said
to be designated either in name or substance, there would be little debate
over the decisions the Joint Houses took.
B. Constitutional Limits on Tax Powers
Apart from the limitations federalism imposes upon the powers of

taxation, a number of provisions in the Federal Constitution impose
additional limitations upon the taxation powers of the Federal Government
and Regional States. Constitutional issues pertaining to taxes are perhaps as
numerous as the constitutional issues themselves. Taxes may affect the right
to property, equality, privacy, freedom of expression, speech, religion, etc.27
Should we want to write about how taxes may encroach upon constitutional
rights and freedoms, there wouldn’t be enough space to write them. Instead,
we will focus upon constitutional issues that are of direct relevance to the
exercise of taxation powers.
In writing about the limits on taxation powers, we cannot (unfortunately)
go beyond the bare language of the Ethiopian Constitution—for there are no
cases as yet to illuminate for us what the Constitution might mean in this
regard. Our principal reference in this regard is Article 100 of the Ethiopian
Constitution. Although it carries an unfortunate title “directives on
taxation”—which downplays and understates the force of the provision—
26. Minutes of the 1st Joint Session of the House of Federation and the House of
Peoples Representatives (Meskerem 26, 1996 E.C. in Amharic), quoted in Assefa, supra note
23, at 62-63.
27. See Tracy A. Kaye & Stephen W. Mazza, United States—National Report:
Constitutional Limitations on the Legislative Power to Tax in the United States, 15 MICH. ST.
J. INT’L L. 481, 489-90 (2007); David Gliksberg, Israel-National Report, 15 MICH. ST. J.
INT’L L. 371, 373-88 (2007); see also Stephen W. Mazza & Tracy A. Kaye, Restricting the
Legislative Power to Tax in the United States, 54 AM. J. COMP. L. 641 (Supp. 2006).
there is little doubt that Article 100 of the Constitution is intended as a limit
on taxation powers of the Federal Government and Regional states.28 Since
the objective of this article is not simply to restate the principles and
limitations laid down in the Constitution but also to highlight gaps (if any)
in it, we shall have recourse below to some other limitations that are not
clearly recognized under the Ethiopian Constitution.
1. The Principle of Tax Legality
The first limitation found in some constitutions is the principle of tax

legality. The modern principle of tax legality is a derivation from the great
historical battles fought between legislative and executive bodies over the
power of taxation. Taxation is historically the crucible of the struggle for
supremacy of powers between the legislative and executive bodies.29 From
the Magna Carta to the English Revolution of 1688, to the American
Independence, taxation was the battle cry of those who sought to keep the
power of taxation in the hands of the legislative (representative) bodies of
the government—hence the colorful slogan “no taxation without
representation.”30
At the minimum, the principle of tax legality means that taxation must
have a legal basis, and this is recognized as a constitutional precept in most
legal systems.31 This requirement is written into the constitutions of many
countries, and even in those countries where it has not obtained explicit
constitutional recognition; it has been derived from other constitutional
principles like “equality in taxation” (Switzerland) or constitutional
provisions guaranteeing personal freedom (Germany).32
Beyond the threshold consensus that taxation must have a legal basis,
there is no agreement as to what else the principle of tax legality requires in
a given tax system.33 One area where the principle of tax legality has some
28. The Amharic version of the Constitution has the final authority in the event of
conflict between the English and Amharic versions of the Constitution. The Amharic version
of the Constitution uses the word “merihowoch,” which roughly translates as “principles.” In
this regard, the Amharic version is closer to the spirit of the Constitution. See The
Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995, Articles 95-99, Negarit
Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1.
29. As William B. Barker writes, “[O]ne of the most important movements in the
development of the modern state ‘has been the struggle to remove the power to tax from
monarchs and to place that power exclusively in the hands of legislators.’” William B.
Barker, The Three Faces of Equality: Constitutional Requirements in Taxation, 57 CASE W.
RES. L. REV. 1, 1 (2006).
30. See Barker, supra note 29; see also Frans Vanistendael, Legal Framework for
Taxation, in 1 TAX LAW DESIGN AND DRAFTING 1, 16, 18 (Victor Thuronyi ed., 1996).
31. Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 16.
32. Id. at 16-17.
33. Id.; “Tax legality” may be understood as prohibiting tax authorities from entering
into agreements with individual taxpayers, or to limit administrative discretion in granting
relevance is over the extent to which legislatures can delegate tax law
making authority to the other branches of government.34 The principle of tax
legality can be understood not only as principle that ensures the supremacy
of the legislature over tax matters but also as a precept that constrains the
powers of the legislature (in this case its power to delegate taxation powers
to the other branches of government). In this regard, the principle of tax
legality can be understood to mean “no delegation of taxation powers
whatsoever” and at the other extreme it can also mean delegation of taxation
powers is permissible for the legislature so long as a constitution allows
delegation of legislature powers generally.35 The position that appears to
have won acceptance in many systems is the intermediate position that
makes delegation of certain taxation powers permissible so long as the
legislature has specified the so-called “essential” or “basic” elements of the
tax in the enabling act or principal tax statute.36 Some Constitutions are very
particular about what elements of tax should be specified in a tax act
approved by parliaments. The Constitution of Greece, for example, requires
that parliamentary tax acts should set out in the tax law a definition of the
basic elements of taxation, such as the subjects of the tax, the property
subject to tax, the tax rate, and exemptions.37 On the question of delegation,
the constitution of Greece prohibits delegation of the “basic” or “essential”
elements of tax to the executive branches.38 The Constitution of Greece goes
so far as to specifically proscribe the retroactive application of tax statutes.39
tax privileges, or to enjoin courts and tax tribunals to construe tax laws strictly. See VICTOR
THURONYI, COMPARATIVE TAX LAW 71 (2003).
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Theodore Fortsakis, Greece-National Report, 15 MICH. ST. J. INT’L L. 327, 328
(2007). In the United States, courts have reached similar conclusions over the power of the
U.S. Congress to delegate taxation powers to the executive branches. U.S. courts have held
that the power of taxation is not subject to delegation “to either the other departments of the
government, or to any individual, private corporation, officer, board or commission.” The
legislature cannot leave too much discretion with the executive as to enable the latter to
select the property to be taxed, or determine “the basis for the measurement of the tax” or
define “the purpose for which the tax” is levied. The powers of taxation that are delegable
are those that are “merely advisory or ministerial in their nature, such as computing the levy,
fixing the rate or enforcing the payment.” Powers that are advisory or ministerial in their
character have been interpreted to include “the power to value property, the power to extend,
assess and collect the taxes and the power to perform any of the innumerable details of
computation, appraisement and adjustment.” See 84 C.J.S. Taxation §8 (1954).
38. Fortsakis, supra note 37, at 329.
39. A partial quote from Article 78 of Greece Constitution may be instructive here:
1. No Tax shall be levied without a statute enacted by Parliament,
specifying the subject of taxation and the income, the type of
property, the expenses and the transactions or categories thereof to
which the tax pertains;
The current Constitution of Ethiopia does not explicitly require that

taxation must have a firm basis in law passed by the Parliament, but this can
be derived from a provision of the Constitution that grants the Federal
Parliament the power to impose taxes and duties on sources reserved to the
Federal Government.40 In addition, the Federal Government has issued a
public financial administration law, which appears to recognize the
principle of tax legality as requiring that any tax must have a firm basis in
law.41 Although this law does not have constitutional status, it shows at least
that the principle of tax legality in its minimum requirement is recognized in
Ethiopia.
Beyond this, the recognition of the principle of tax legality in matters of
delegation of taxation powers, retroactive application of taxation powers,
and other matters is unclear. The current Constitution of Ethiopia contains
no provision that might even remotely constrain the Ethiopian parliament
from delegating the essential elements of taxation powers to the executive
branches. The question is whether, in the face of the silence of the
Constitution, the Ethiopian parliament can delegate wholesale taxation
powers to the executive branches, and if, in particular, the Ethiopian
parliament can give full powers to the Council of Ministers or the Ministry
of Finance or for that matter the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority
(ERCA) to define by regulations or directives the tax base, the tax rates and
the taxpayers? A recent amendment to the income tax law of Ethiopia came
close to doing just that. After broadly defining “windfall profits,” the
income tax amendment law delegated to the Ministry of Finance broad
powers to define “windfall profits” and to determine the tax rates through
2. A tax or any other financial charge may not be imposed by a

retroactive statute effective prior to the fiscal year preceding the
imposition of the tax;
3. Exceptionally, in the case of imposition or increase of an import
or export duty or a consumer tax, collection thereof shall be
permitted as of the date on which the Bill shall be tabled in
Parliament, on condition that the statute shall be published within the
time-limit specified in article 42 paragraph 1, and in any case not
later than ten days from the end of the Parliamentary session;
4. The object of taxation, the tax rate, the tax abatements and
exemptions and the granting of pensions may not be subject to
legislative delegation; Theodore Fortsakis, supra note 37, at 328-29.
Non-retroactivity is treated by some writers as a separate limitation on taxation powers. See
THURONYI, supra note 33, at 76-81.
40. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995, Article
55(1), Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1.
41. See The Federal Government of Ethiopia Financial Administration Proclamation.
Article 10(1), Proclamation No. 648, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15, No. 56 (stating that “no public
money shall be collected except when authorized by law”).
directives.42 This law clearly devolves broad discretionary powers of

taxation upon an executive branch of government.
However this type of delegation is viewed in the future (if at all such an
issue is taken to the House of the Federation—the body with the power to
handle issues of constitutional interpretation in Ethiopia), the constitutional
constraints upon the delegatory powers of the Ethiopian parliament appear
to be weak at best. We may infer this from the practice of tax power
delegation—which, although not conclusive, does suggest that delegation of
taxing powers is not frowned upon as in some other systems.
The Ethiopian parliament makes extensive use of delegation—if the tax
laws are anything to go by. One of the powers that the Parliament routinely
delegates to the executive branches is the power to exempt taxpayers—
sometimes with a proviso and at other times without any strings attached.
Tax exemption powers are liberally delegated to the executive branches. We
can cite many examples of liberal delegation of exemption powers in the
Income Tax law of Ethiopia, which has a provision that, for example,
empowers the Council Ministers to exempt income for “economic,
administrative or social reasons.”43 We can also cite examples from the
Ethiopian Value Added Tax law, which authorizes the Ministry of Finance
to exempt supplies from VAT without having to seek the approval of the
Parliament.44
It is not just exemption powers that are liberally delegated to the
executive branches. The Ethiopian Parliament makes extensive use of
delegations that tend to create new or increase obligations of taxpayers.
These types of delegations are not couched in as clear a language as the
powers of exemption, but the consequence is all the same—these
delegations empower the executive to define the obligations of taxpayers (in
effect create new obligations). An example of this form of delegation is
found in the VAT Proclamation of 2002. The Proclamation empowers the
42. See Proclamation No. 693, Negarit Gazeta, Year 17, No. 3 (Eth.) [hereinafter
Income Tax Proclamation No. 693]. The relevant provision of the amendment Proclamation
empowers the Minister (of Finance) to prescribe (by directives) the amount of income to be
considered as windfall profit, the businesses that are subject to tax on windfall profits, the
date on which the tax will become effective, and the manner in which the tax is to be
assessed and the factors to be taken into account for assessment. See id. art. 2(2), 2(3).
43. Income Tax Proclamation of Ethiopia of 2002, Article 13(e), Proclamation No.
286, Negarit Gazeta, Year 8, No. 34 [hereinafter Income Tax Proclamation No. 286]. The
Council of Ministers has used this power to exempt some types of employment income from
tax. Id.; See Council of Ministers Income Tax Regulations of 2002, Article 78, Proclamation
No. 78, Negarit Gazeta, Year 8, No. 37 (Eth.).
44. VAT Proclamation, supra note 24, art. 8(4). The Ministry has used this power to
exempt certain transactions from VAT. Consider, for example, the exemptions for supplies
of medical supplies, bread and milk and fertilizers. Tax Synopsis, MINISTRY OF FIN. & ECON.
DEV., http://www.mofed.gov.et/English/Information/Pages/TaxSynopsis.aspx (last visited
Nov. 17, 2011).
Ministry of Finance to increase or reduce VAT registration threshold,45

which may not, at first sight, appear to increase the tax obligations of
taxpayers, but whenever the Ministry moves to redefine the administrative
reach of the VAT (by reducing the threshold), the consequence is bringing
within the VAT network more and more registrants—in effect increasing
their tax obligations or at least their tax burdens in the process.46
The most recent example of a liberal delegation (perhaps too liberal for
comfort) is to be found in a recent amendment to the Income Tax
Proclamation of 2002.47 The amendment has introduced a “new” source of
taxable income into the income tax regime of Ethiopia—windfall profits.
After broadly defining “windfall profits” as “any profit obtained by any
person as a result of a change occurred (sic) in local or international
economic or political situations without its efforts,”48 the amendment
Proclamation confers extensive powers upon the Ministry of Finance to
determine from time to time the sources of income which are to be subject
to the windfall profits tax and the tax rates.49 The Ministry has issued a
directive shortly after the issuance of the Proclamation targeting “windfall
profits” derived by banks from devaluation of Ethiopian currency—the
Birr.50 An interesting feature of the directive is that it purports to apply the
tax upon “windfall profits” derived by banks before the Proclamation and
the Directive were issued (both the Proclamation and the Directive were
issued in November 2010, but the taxes were to be applicable upon profits
allegedly obtained by banks from foreign exchange holding back in
September 2010, when the Ethiopian Government devalued Birr by almost
20%).51 The directive is not only an evidence of broad exercise of executive
powers but also of retroactivity.
To sum up, the liberal use of delegation of taxing powers to the
executive does seem to indicate that the principle of tax legality is not
45. See VAT Proclamation, supra note 24, art. 16(2).

46. See Value Added Tax Proclamation, Article 64, Proclamation No. 285, Negarit
Gazeta, Year 8, No. 33 (Eth.); See also Income Tax Proclamation. Article 117, Proclamation
No. 286, Negarit Gazeta, Year 8, No. 34 (Eth.) (citing another example of a delegation which
empowers the executive branch to increase tax obligations for the “proper implementation”
of the respective proclamations). The Council of Ministers has used these provisions to issue
a regulation for the obligatory use of cash register machines; the Council has also used this
power to delegate its delegated power to the Ministry of Revenues and the latter has issued
directives defining the obligations of various parties in the use of the sales register machines.
See Council of Ministers Regulation to Provide for the Obligatory Use of Sales Register
Machines of 2003. Regulation No. 139, Year 13, No. 4 (Eth.); Ministry of Revenues of 2007,
Directive No. 46 (Eth.) (Directive to Provide for the Use of Sales Register Machines,
unpublished).
47. See Income Tax Proclamation No. 693, supra note 42.
48. Id. art. 2(1).
49. Id. art. 2(2).
50. See Directive No. 29/2003, A Directive to Impose Tax on Windfall Profits of
Banks, MINISTRY OF FIN. & ECON. DEV. (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished).
51. Id. art. 5.
recognized in Ethiopia. However, simply because tax delegations are

liberally employed does not mean that the practice is right. Unfortunately,
there are no formal channels for challenging delegations of taxing powers,
and even if there are, there has never been this tradition of challenging
discretionary administrative actions in courts or other tribunals,52 and as a
result, the practice of delegation has never been subjected to scrutiny by
courts or other tribunals.
2. The Principles of Fidelity to Sources of Taxes and Procedural

Fairness
Unlike the principle of tax legality, the principles of fidelity to sources of

taxes and procedural fairness are recognized in the Ethiopian Constitution—
in Article 100(1). Article 100 (1) is perhaps the most inscrutable of all the
limitations we find in the Ethiopian Constitution. It is so inscrutable that
even finding a proper title for it has been a challenge. It states that both
Federal and State Governments “shall ensure that any tax is related to the
source of revenue taxed and that it is determined following proper
considerations.” We notice from the language of Article 100 (1) that it is a
composite of two related limitations: one on the relationship between the tax
and the source of revenue taxed and the other is a variant of due process
required in the levying of taxes.
The first requirement in Article 100(1) is that the taxes the Federal
Government or the Regional States impose be related to the “source of
revenue” taxed. The phrase “source of revenue” may be construed as the
sources of revenue assigned to the two layers of the Ethiopian federation.
We have already seen how the Ethiopian Constitution assigns taxes between
the Federal Government and the Regional States (see above). Some
“sources of revenue” are designated as “federal exclusive” (Article 96),
some as “state exclusive” (Article 97), some as “concurrent” (Article 98),
and there are some that are yet to be designated by the Joint Houses (Article
99). We may say Article 96 taxes are sources of revenue for the Federal
Government, Article 97 taxes are sources of revenue for the Regional
States, and Article 98 taxes are sources of revenue for both layers. Article
100 (1) appears to be saying that the two layers ensure the taxes they
impose in practice be faithful to the sources designated as theirs in Articles
96, 97 and 98 of the Constitution.
This begs some inconvenient questions: can either of the two layers of
the Ethiopian federation levy and collect taxes, which are related to, but not
52. Taxpayers may, of course, challenge the constitutionality of delegations

whenever the Tax Administration or the executive in general are suspected of violating some
provisions of the Constitution. So far, no such challenges have been known to have been
mounted by taxpayers. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of
1995, Articles 95-99, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1; See also Ibrahim Idris, Constitutional
Adjudication Under the 1994 FDRE Constitution, 1 ETH. L. REV. 67-75 (2002).
expressed in, Articles 96-98 of the Constitution? Can the Federal

Government, for example, impose payroll taxes on “Federal Government
employees” and justify that as a federal tax because the payroll taxes are
imposed on employees of the Federal Government? Can the Regional States
impose “education taxes” or “health taxes” on farmers and cooperative
societies as in the old times when these taxes were tied to agricultural land
and income? Are these related enough to Articles 96 and 97 of the Ethiopian
Constitution? If they are deemed related, how do we distinguish “related”
taxes from “undesignated” taxes?
The lines between “related” taxes and “undesignated” taxes are not well-
defined in the Ethiopian Constitution. Nonetheless, both the Federal
Government and Regional States have in practice continued to levy and
collect taxes that are not expressly stated in the Constitution as theirs. The
Regional States, for example, have authorized the levying and collection of
municipal/property taxes although these taxes are not expressly mentioned
in the Constitution as regional government taxes.53 The Federal Government
has, on its part, introduced a sur-tax on imports—which is probably the
most perfect example of a tax related to the sources of revenue assigned to
the Federal Government.54 The Constitution does not make direct reference
to sur-tax on imports, but since the Federal Government has exclusive
jurisdiction over taxes on imports and exports, the Federal Government may
have been justified in introducing sur-tax on imports without having to go to
the Joint Houses for designation.55
So far these practices have gone uncontested because both levels of
governments tend to tolerate one another in the levying and collection of
certain taxes. The Federal Government has not challenged the levying and
collection of municipal taxes, nor have the Regional States really challenged
the Federal Government over the levying and collection of some taxes
which are not designated by the Constitution.
The absence of contest from either side does not show that the tension
between “related” taxes and “undesignated” taxes is a chimera. The tensions
may come to the surface when opposing political forces control Federal
Government and regional government bodies.56 There is nothing in the
53. See Addis Abba City Government Revised Charter, Article 52(6), Proclamation
No. 361/2003), Negarit Gazeta, Year 9, No. 86 (Eth.).
54. See Import Sur-Tax Council of Ministers Regulations of 2007, Proclamation No.
133, Negarit Gazeta, Year 13, No. 23 (Eth.).
Articles 95-99, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1 (the introduction of sur-tax on imports is
consistent with the power of the Federal Government to “levy and collect customs duties,
taxes and other charges on imports and exports”; although sur-taxes are not mentioned, they
are related to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government over international trade
taxes).
56. At the moment, the ruling party (the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary
Democratic Front—EPRDF) controls all the reins of power in both the Federal Government
and Regional States either through its constituent parties or through its affiliates.
Constitution that prevents either the Federal Government or the Regional

States from triggering the “undesignated” button in Article 99—which is
simply referring controversial taxes to the arbitration of the Joint Houses.
In any event, Article 100 (1) should be construed so strictly as to permit
both layers of governments to levy only taxes that are so related to the taxes
expressly stated in the Constitution that there might not be a need to refer
the matter to the verdict of the Joint Houses. Article 99 of the Ethiopian
Constitution has already stated that taxes which are undesignated by
Articles 96-98 are to be determined by the Joint Houses. There is a reason
why the Ethiopian Constitution has departed from its approach in the area of
expenditure assignment, which is based on the principle of residuality. The
Constitution is very particular about the assignment of taxes in Articles 96-
98. The Constitution is also very particular about the fate of “undesignated”
taxes in Article 99. It appears that neither the Federal Government nor the
Regional States are willing to cede powers over “undesignated” taxes. In
cases of doubt, all undesignated taxes, including those that are “related” to
the sources of revenue assigned in Articles 96-98, should be referred for
arbitration of the Joint Houses and be designated properly. Otherwise, the
potential for abuse of “related tax” powers is innumerable.57 The
Constitution that has gone to great lengths to specify the taxation powers of
both layers of government cannot be read as to condone the liberal use of
“related” tax powers.
As for the second limitation in Article 100(1), we shall have recourse to
constitutional limitations elsewhere in search of clues as to what the
limitation might mean. One limitation we find in some constitutions is the
“principle of equality,’” which may be taken to have two meanings:
procedural and substantive.58 In its procedural context, the principle of
equality may require the law (in this case, tax law) to “be applied
completely and impartially, regardless of the status of the person
involved.”59 Substantively, the principle has been understood in some
countries to require equal treatment of “persons in equal circumstances.”60
The obvious prohibition in this regard is the differential taxation of persons
on grounds of ethnicity, religion, gender or political affiliation.61 In France,
for example, the principle of equality has been construed to prohibit the
57. Unless one of the two layers complains about the levying of ‘related taxes’ or
unless taxpayers challenge the levying of ‘related taxes,’ there is a possibility that the Federal
Government or the Regional States may establish their right to impose these taxes, as it were,
by tradition—despite what Article 99 of the Constitution states.
58. See Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 19; see also THURONYI, supra note 33, at 82-
92.
59. Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 19. In some countries, equality is understood in
its procedural aspect only, requiring merely that governments apply the law as written
although the law itself may discriminate among different categories of taxpayers. See David
Elkins, Horizontal Equity as Principle of Tax Theory, 24 YALE L. & POL’Y REV. 63 (2006).
60. See Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 19.
61. Id.
denial of procedural rights to some citizens but not to others,62 while in

Germany, the Constitutional Court interpreted it as calling for equal taxation
of similarly situated persons and held that de facto unequal taxation of
interest income was unconstitutional.63
Another principle of tax limitation, which might throw some light on the
meaning of Article 100(1) of the Ethiopian Constitution, is the principle of
fair play or public trust in tax administration.64 The principle addresses the
rights of taxpayers during tax administration. The principle has been held to
require tax administration to notify a taxpayer of any action it may take
relating to the taxpayer and to afford a taxpayer all the rights of process.65
The principle has also been held in some countries to mean that taxpayers
“can rely on the statements of tax administration” provided that taxpayers
have given the tax administration “a full and fair representation of the
facts.”66 Still another limitation might be of some relevance—the principle
of proportionality, which has been used by western European courts to
require proportional relationship between the goals to be attained and the
means used by the legislator.67 This principle is said to have prohibited
excessive taxes, which may incidentally be proscribed by constitutional
guarantees of private property and the freedom of commerce and industry.68
In the end, we cast about so many constitutional limitations in other tax
systems in the hopes of approximating the meaning of Article 100(1) of the
Ethiopian Constitution. We can only speculate as to the meaning of the two
limitations in Article 100(1) until a dispute arises and somehow those
charged with the interpretation of the Constitution (the HoF in Ethiopia)
explain for us what it means. The best clue to the meaning of these
limitations is to be found in actual cases, of which there are none at the
moment.
3. Intergovernmental Immunity
It is quite common for federal structures and constitutions to impose the

limitation of “intergovernmental immunity.” We shall take the development
of intergovernmental immunity in the United States to highlight the issues
surrounding the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. In the U.S., the
limitation of intergovernmental immunity grew out of a series of cases in
which the Supreme Court defined and redefined the limits of
62. See id. at 20.

63. Id.
64. See id. at 21-22.
65. Id. at 21.
66. See Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 21.
67. Id. at 22- 23.
68. Id. at 23.
intergovernmental immunity.69 At first the doctrine of intergovernmental

immunity was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit the Federal
Government from imposing taxes on income derived from state bonds,
extending the immunity even to those who made contracts with the states.70
The limitation worked both ways. In other words, it served as a limitation
on states to impose taxes on those who made contracts with the Federal
Government. This limitation was gradually relaxed in later cases. The extent
of intergovernmental immunity has been relaxed in later cases. Under the
modern doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, the states can impose
taxes on private persons who do business with the Federal Government and
the Federal Government can do the same, even though the financial burden
of the tax falls indirectly upon the states or the Federal Government. As
long as the tax does not discriminate against those who do business with
either the Federal Government or the states, the tax will stand constitutional
scrutiny.71 What does not withstand constitutional scrutiny is a tax that
imposes a direct burden upon either the Federal Government or the states.72
The Ethiopian Constitution is fairly explicit about intergovernmental
immunity. In Article 100(3), it states that neither the Federal Government
nor the Regional States can impose taxes on each other’s property, unless
the property is a profit-making enterprise. However, it can be argued that
the modality of revenue assignment in the Ethiopian Constitution already
precludes the possibility of most cases of intergovernmental taxation in
Ethiopia. As we saw above, the Constitution divides tax powers between the
Federal Government and the Regional States on the basis of set formulas
that assign taxes based on their association with either of the levels of the
Ethiopian Federation. Although the Ethiopian Constitution excepts profit-
making federal or state government enterprises from “intergovernmental
immunity,” it is unlikely these enterprises will become the subject of
taxation, as the Federal Government has been assigned the power to levy
and collect most taxes on enterprises it owns as Regional States are assigned
the power to levy and collect taxes on the profit-making enterprises they
own. Currently, the value added tax (which is a federal tax) is levied upon
private contractors that have supply or service contracts with Regional
States, which means that Regional States pay the VAT to the Federal
Government. It is not clear if Regional States may challenge this and similar
other taxes on grounds of “intergovernmental immunity.” So far, none of
the Regional States have raised challenges.
69. FEDERAL TAX COURSE 118 (Chicago, CCH Ed. Staff ed. 2000) [hereinafter
FEDERAL TAX COURSE]; See also Kenneth W. Dam, The American Fiscal Constitution, 44 U.
CHI. L. REV. 290 (1977).
70. See Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), quoted in
FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 119.
71. FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 118-19.
72. Id. at 119.
4. Principle of Non-Discrimination
Another limitation closely associated with federal structures is the

prohibition of discrimination in taxation. Unlike “intergovernmental
immunity,” the principle of non-discrimination (or against discrimination) is
mostly invoked against the constituent states of a federation. When states in
a federal system are entrusted with the power of taxation, a distinct threat of
discrimination arises particularly against out of state residents, businesses or
goods. In the U.S., the principle of “non-discrimination” is developed
through judicial review to curtail the power of states from discriminating
against out of state residents, businesses, or goods.73 Taxpayers challenged
and succeeded in getting state taxes struck down on the ground that these
taxes are discriminatory. In Toomer v. Witsell,74 the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down one licensing fee on non-resident shrimp boat owners imposed
at a rate a hundred times greater than residents. In Lunding v. New York Tax
Appeals Tribunal,75 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New York law
that prevented non-residents from deducting alimony payments. In Davis v.
Michigan Department of Treasury,76 the state of Michigan granted blanket
exemption from state taxation of all retirement benefits paid by Michigan or
its political subdivisions while keeping in place taxation of retirement
benefits paid by all other employers, including the Federal Government.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the exemption by the state of Michigan
was discriminatory and failed constitutional scrutiny.77
The U.S. Supreme Court has also used the so-called “dormant commerce
clause” doctrine to limit the powers of states in this regard.78 The doctrine
has been held to prohibit state discrimination of interstate commerce as well
as undue burdens on commerce.79 In Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax
Commission,80 for example, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state that
provides a direct commercial advantage to local business is imposing a tax
that discriminates against interstate commerce.
The principle of non-discrimination, which in the U.S. is developed
through judicial review, is explicitly recognized in the Australian
73. See Dam, supra note 69, at 282-87.

74. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948), cited in Kaye & Mazza, supra note 27,
at 511.
75. Lunding v. New York Tax App. Trib., 522 U.S. 287 (1998), cited in Kaye &
Mazza, supra note 27, at 511.
76. 89-2, USTC ¶ 9456, cited in FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 119 n.33.
77. See FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 119.
78. Kaye & Mazza, supra note 27, at 511-12. See also Dam, supra note 69, at 282-
83.
79. Kaye & Mazza, supra note 27, at 512.
80. Boston Stock Exch. v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U.S. 318, 329 (1977) quoted in
Kaye & Mazza, supra note 27, at 513.
Constitution.81 The Australian court has used the Constitution to strike down
exemptions that were available to in-state residents on discriminatory
bases.82 The Ethiopian Constitution does not contain a non-discrimination
clause specifically for taxes. There is a general equality clause in Article 25
of the Constitution, and there is a provision that gives to the Federal
Government the power to regulate interstate commerce.83 It is not clear if
these provisions in the Ethiopian Constitution may be used to constrain the
power of the states from discriminating against out of state residents,
businesses, or goods. Once again, there are as yet no cases in which any of
the regional state taxes have been struck down on grounds of discriminatory
treatment of out-of-state citizens or businesses.
5. Adverse Impact and Benefit Principles
At the outset, it must be stated that these two limitations are not related
except for the fact that the Ethiopian Constitution (for some curious
reasons) treats the two in one sub-article. Article 100(2) of the Ethiopian
Constitution states two limitations on tax powers, but, given the ambiguity
of the limitations involved, it is difficult to say that these are indeed
limitations. The first limitation is the “adverse impact” limitation. The
Constitution enjoins the Federal Government and the Regional States from
exercising their tax powers in ways that would adversely impact the tax
powers of the other. The opportunities for adverse impact are too numerous
to count here. Let’s take some examples if only to raise questions.
The Federal Government has issued investment incentive laws that have
an impact on the capacity of the Regional States to raise revenues from
sources assigned to them by the Constitution.84 The ostensible rationale of
these investment laws is the attraction of investment—both foreign and
domestic.85 The principal instrument for attraction of investments in this
country has been the use of tax incentives in various forms. For example,
investments in agro-processing and manufacturing industries at the moment
enjoy a five-year tax holiday which may be extended under certain
81. Miranda Stewart & Kristen Walker, Australian National Report, 15 MICH. ST. J.
INT’L L. 193, 238 (2007) (discussing section 117 of the Australian Constitution).
82. Id. (quoting Commission of Taxes v. Parks, (1933) St R Qd 306).
84. See Investment of Ethiopia of 2002, Proclamation No. 280, Negarit Gazeta, Year
8, No. 27; Investment Amendment of Ethiopia of 2003, Proclamation No. 373, Negarit
Gazeta, Year 10, No. 8; Council of Ministers Regulations on Investment Incentives and
Investment Areas Reserved for Domestic Investors of 2003, Proclamation No. 84, Negarit
Gazeta, Year 9, No. 34 (Eth.).
85. See Investment of Ethiopia of 2002, Proclamation No. 280, supra note 84, pmbl.
circumstances.86 Should the Regional States be constrained by the federal

investment laws and restrain themselves from taxation of investors who
enjoy a tax holiday under the federal investment laws? If we look at the
issue from the vantage point of the Federal Government, we may argue that
the Regional States are constrained by the federal investment policy from
levying taxes on investors who are exempted from tax by the Federal
Government. But we may also look at the issue from the vantage point of
the Regional States. The investment laws (no matter how well-intentioned
they may be) have an adverse impact on the capacity of the Regional States
to raise revenues from sources assigned to them by the Constitution.
Shouldn’t the Federal Government exercise equal restraint when it comes to
the legitimate revenue interests of the Regional States? There are many
contentious issues like these that require resolution through practical cases –
of which we can adduce none at this point.
The second prong of Article 100(2) appears to make “benefits received”
by members of the public as a basis for levying of taxes by both the Federal
Government and the Regional States. The “benefit principle” is a well-
known and established principle in the literature of taxation, although the
constitutional recognition of it is of doubtful value. It is a principle that is
more often invoked for sentimental and rhetorical reasons in tax literature
than for explaining the practice of taxation.87 It may have limited application
in the area of fees and a few other taxes but that is just about it. It is
extremely difficult for taxpayers to challenge a tax on the ground that they
receive no benefits, and it is equally difficult for the government to establish
correspondence between what it collects from taxes and the public services
it provides to taxpayers. The apparent incorporation of the “benefits
principle” in the Ethiopian Constitution is one of the reasons why we should
cast doubts about the binding force of constitutional limitations upon the
powers of taxation in Ethiopia.
C. The Federal Tax Administration
For a long period of time, tax administration in Ethiopia was an

appendage of ministries that did not have administrative specialization over
the assessment and collection of taxes—the Ministry of Trade and Industry
before the Italian occupation (1936) and the Ministry of Finance after the
86. Council of Ministers Regulations on Investment Incentives and Investment Areas

Reserved for Domestic Investors of 2003, Article 4, Proclamation No. 84, Negarit Gazeta,
Year 9, No. 34 (Eth.).
87. See Laurie Reynolds, Taxes, Fees and Assessments, Dues and the “Get What You
Pay for” Model of Local Government, 56 FLA L. REV. 373 (2004); Joseph M. Dodge,
Theories of Tax Justice: Ruminations on the Benefit, Partnership and Ability-to-Pay
Principles, 58 TAX L. REV. 399 (2005); See also Due & Friedlaender, supra note 22.
Italian occupation (1941).88 Administrative units or departments within

these Ministries were charged with tax administration. The preferred mode
of organization was the organization of administrative units around the
types of taxes rather than the functions of tax administration.89
One mode of organization that prevailed for a long time was an
organization of tax administration units or departments for assessment and
collection of taxes on international trade (customs duties, sales and excise
taxes on imports and exports) and another one for domestic (internal) taxes
or revenues (income taxes, sales and excise taxes, stamp duties on domestic
transactions). The administrative units for assessment and collection of
international trade taxes were organized under the “customs departments” or
“customs authorities” while those for the administration of domestic taxes
were organized under “inland revenue departments” or “inland revenue
authorities.” There were also times when specific taxes had their own tax
administration units or departments within the Ministries (e.g., income tax
departments, excise tax departments). The separation of tax administration
for domestic and international transactions had the effect of parallel tax
administrations for those taxes that were levied on both domestic and
international transactions. For example, customs departments or
administrations assessed and collected sales taxes on imports and Inland
Revenue Departments assessed and collected sales taxes on domestic
transactions.90
With the establishment of the Federal Government Revenue Board in
1995, Ethiopian Tax Administration was for the first time organized as a
separate and autonomous government body. 91 The Board was established to
88. Tax administration was the domain of the Ministry of Commerce and Customs
(established in 1907) before the Italian occupation. See Bahru Zewde, Economic Origins of
the Absolutist State in Ethiopia, in SOCIETY, STATE AND HISTORY: SELECTED ESSAYS 113
(Addis Ababa University Press 2008). See also Mahteme Sillassie Wolde Meskel, Zikra
Nagar, 2d Issue (in Amharic), 1962 E.C., pp. 171-174; Abebe Hunachew, About the
Ethiopian Customs Authority, 3 GEBI LELIMAT, at 37 (2007); The Ministers (Definition of
Powers) Amendment No. 2 of 1966, Article 29, Order No. 46 (Eth.) (repealed). One of the
powers of the Ministry of Finance was the power to “ensure that tax laws are properly
enforced and that all revenues due from taxes, customs and excise duties, fees and monopoly
dues and other sources are properly assessed, collected and accounted for.” Ministers
(Definition of Powers) of 1943, Article 29(d), Order (Eth.) (repealed); See also Proclamation
No. 145 of 1955 (Eth.) (repealed); Income Tax Proclamation No. 173 of 1961, Article 20
(Eth.) (repealed).
89. See Melkamu Belachew, Powers and Functions of the Federal Inland Revenue
Authority (FIRA) and the Position of the Tax Appeal Commission (2003) (unpublished
senior thesis, Addis Ababa University) (on file with the Faculty of Law Library Archives).
90. See Income Tax Proclamation of Ethiopia of 1961, Article 20, Proclamation No.
173, Negarit Gazeta, Year 20, No. 13 (Eth.) (repealed) [hereinafter Income Tax Proclamation
No. 173]; Alcohol Excise Tax of 1965, Articles 31-35, Proclamation No. 217 (Eth.)
(repealed); Proclamation to Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to the Customs of
1955, Article 5, Proclamation No. 145 (Eth.) (repealed).
91. The Federal Government Revenues Board was established as an autonomous
organ of the Federal Government with accountability to the Council of Ministers at the time.
oversee and coordinate the operations of three federal revenue agencies at

the time: the Inland Revenue Authority, the Ethiopian Customs Authority,
and the National Lottery Administration.92 A reorganization of Ethiopian
tax administration in 2001 elevated tax administration to a ministerial level,
creating the Ministry of Revenues (MoR). Like its predecessor, the Federal
Government Revenue Board, the Ministry of Revenues was established to
coordinate and supervise the three revenue agencies of the Federal
Government, namely, the Federal Inland Revenue Authority (FIRA), the
Ethiopian Customs Authority (ECuA), and the National Lottery.93
The most recent reorganization and restructuring of tax administration—
which occurred in 2008—merged the three revenue agencies of the Federal
Government into one authority—the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs
Authority (ERCA).94 This reorganization of Federal Tax Administration has
relegated the task of tax administration from ministerial level to an authority
but in substance, the reorganization has in fact strengthened the powers of
the Tax Authority.95 Recent tax administration reforms have introduced a
number of changes to Ethiopian tax administration, only some of which are
mentioned here under for their instructive value.
For the first time, the tax authority (ERCA) has assumed the powers to
investigate and prosecute tax and customs offenses directly without having
to rely upon the goodwill of the regular police and prosecution offices as
was previously the case. Under the reforms of 2008, most of the
investigation and the prosecution work are to be handled within the tax
authority.96 The elevation of the tax authority to that of “prosecutor and
investigator” of tax and customs crimes relegates the regular police and
prosecution offices to mere supporting acts like the apprehension of
suspects, production of witnesses, seizure and control of contraband, and the
See Federal Government Revenues Board Establishment of 2005, Article 2(1)-(2),

Proclamation No. 5, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 5 (Eth.), available at
http://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/proc-no-5-1995-federal-government-revenues-
board-establishment.pdf (last visited Nov. 11, 2011).
92. Federal Government Revenues Board Establishment Proclamation, supra note
91, art. 4(2).
93. See Reorganization of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia of 2001, Proclamation No. 256, Negarit Gazeta, Year 8, No. 2 (repealed and
replaced by Proclamation No. 471/2005).
94. See Council of Ministers National Lottery Administration Re-establishment of
2009, Regulation No. 160, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15, No. 21 (Eth.) (the National Lottery
retained some autonomy even after the merger under the supervision of the ERCA).
95. ERCA is organized as an authority with direct accountability to the Prime
Minister. It is headed by a Director General and Deputy Director Generals appointed by the
Prime Minister. Under them, the Authority has prosecutors and administrative employees.
Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority (ERCA) Establishment of 2008, Article 9,
Proclamation No. 587, Negarit Gazeta, Year 14, No. 44.
96. Id. art. 16.
accompanying of customs transit goods and vehicles.97 The technical

matters of tax and customs crime investigation and prosecution are now the
exclusive preserve of tax administration.
The other significant reform of recent times is the decision to create
special personnel administration rules and procedures for employees of
ERCA. Shortly after the major reorganization of Ethiopian tax
administration, special personnel administration regulations were issued in
2008 governing employees of ERCA, who until then had been governed by
the Federal Civil Service Laws. The “Special Personnel Administration
Regulations” of 2008 is a sui generis legislation governing most issues
pertaining to the employment relationships of the personnel of ERCA. The
Regulations have special rules for the personnel of ERCA governing
classification, salary, allowances, recruitment, promotion, internal transfer,
re-deployment, training, performance evaluation, incentives, and benefits.98
The Regulations have special rules even for working hours (the maximum
weekly working hours is 43, not 48), annual leave, and special leaves.99
Some of the special rules and procedures of the “Special Personnel”
Regulations are bound to become controversial for they depart from and at
times conflict with the general rules of civil service regulations in Federal
Civil Service laws. In the section on “Duties, Ethics and Disciplinary
Measures,” for example, the Regulations introduce several novel
requirements and procedures, which are not contemplated in the Federal
Civil Service Laws.100 The Regulations are one of the first to require
prospective and existing employees of ERCA to submit property held in
their names or in the name of their spouses or minor children for
registration, no doubt to combat corruption.101 The Regulations contain a
long list of offenses which entail rigorous penalties, once again intended to
combat corruption.102 The new rules might have been well-intentioned
(driven, probably, by the desire to stamp out corruption), but they are bound
to raise concerns largely because of the possible conflicts between the
special Regulations and the existing Federal Civil Service Laws.
The new Regulations confer sweeping powers upon the Director (of
ERCA) to dismiss any employee upon mere suspicion of corruption.103 The
decision of the Director is final in this regard, taking away the rights
97. Id. See also Customs Proclamation of 2009, Articles 18(2), 86, Proclamation No.
98. Administration of Employees of the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority
Council of Ministers Regulation of 2008, Articles 4-10, 15-18, Proclamation No. 155,
Negarit Gazeta, Year 14, No. 49 (Eth.).
99. Id. arts. 20-23.
100. Id. part 7.
101. Id. art. 26.
102. These include accepting or seeking any kind of benefit from customers,
divulging confidential information, and obstructing the proper course of service delivery. Id.
art. 31.
103. Id. art. 37(2).
employees of the Authority used to have under the Federal Civil Service
laws of Ethiopia.104 A former employee of the Authority who was dismissed
under the new Regulations challenged this power of the Director before the
Federal Civil Service Agency Administrative Tribunal.105 The
Administrative Tribunal believed that this case raised an issue of
constitutional interpretation and referred the case to the Council of
Constitutional Inquiry. The Council did not see anything unusual about the
denial of judicial review to employees of ERCA and ruled that the matter
did not raise constitutional interpretation.106 This decision of the Council of
Constitutional Inquiry strengthens the now powerful arm of ERCA in tax
administration. The establishment laws, the personnel regulations as well as
decisions reached over their legality signal the ever increasing powers of
ERCA in all aspects of tax administration. It is quite evident that ERCA has
assumed hitherto unheard of powers of prosecution and investigation of tax
and customs offenses as well as regulation of its employees, perhaps
untroubled by the country’s civil service laws in the latter case.
Recent tax administration reforms have clearly concentrated the powers
over tax administration in ERCA, but ERCA is by no means the sole player
in tax administration. Other government bodies are involved in tax
administration, albeit in a limited capacity. The Ministry of Finance may
have ceased as a tax administration body since 1995, but it is still involved
in some capacity in tax administration.107 The Ministry of Finance is a major
player in the field of issuing tax exemptions and directives on the
implementation of the principal tax laws. The Ministry receives applications
for exemptions and grants tax exemptions on case-by-case basis. The
Ministry is also involved in the formulation of the fiscal policy of the
Federal Government, whose instruments happen to be taxes and duties,
among others.108 Other governmental bodies, like the Federal Investment
Agency, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry of Tourism and
Culture, and the National Bank of Ethiopia, are also involved in tax
administration in more limited capacity.109 The Ethiopian Investment Board
104. See Federal Civil Servants Proclamation of 2007, Article 74, Proclamation No.
105. Ato Ibrahim Mohammed v. Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority, Federal
Administrative Tribunal, Appeal File No. 00852/2001, Yekatit 26, 2002 E.C. (in Amharic)
(unpublished).
106. In the Matter of Federal Civil Service Agency Administrative Tribunal, Council
of Constitutional Inquiry, File No. 101/12/2001, Yekatit 1, 2002 E.C. (in Amharic)
(unpublished).
107. Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 13(d)(iii); VAT
Proclamation, supra note 24, art. 8(4).
108. See Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the FDRE
Proclamation of 2005, Article 19(10), Proclamation No. 471, Negarit Gazeta, Year 12, No. 1
(Eth.).
109. Council of Ministers Regulation on Investment Incentives and Investment Areas
Reserved for Domestic Investors of 2003, Articles 4(4), 4(7), 9, 10(2), Proclamation No. 84,
(now Agency) is active in the area of tax incentives, where it has issued
directives to define and determine the extent of tax incentives provided by
the Investment laws of the country.110
The diffusion of tax administration in the hands of multiple government
bodies may have been unavoidable but it has side effects. Sometimes
conflicts of jurisdiction may arise between the different government bodies.
Jurisdictional conflicts may, for example, arise between the regular
prosecution offices or the Federal Anti-Corruption Commission on the one
hand, and the prosecutors of ERCA on the other, over the characterization
of certain offenses, which depending on who is looking at them, may be
characterized either as corruption offenses or customs/tax offenses. The
chances for conflicts of jurisdiction or lack of coordination have been
considerably reduced as a result of recent reforms to merge the authorities
that are directly involved in tax administration, but there are still many
government bodies involved (at least indirectly) in tax administration,
raising concerns of mis-coordination and conflicts of jurisdiction.
II. PART II
A. The Organization of Tax Laws in Ethiopia
A logical organization of laws, particularly of tax laws, is critical for the

proper comprehension of the tax system.111 Different legal systems organize
their tax laws differently, ranging from those countries that organize their
tax laws in codes to those that issue tax laws in scattered pieces of
legislation. The organization of tax laws in different legal systems is one
minor paradox in and of itself. The status of a country as a civil law country
has not had any impact on codification of tax laws. A number of countries,
such as Cameroon, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, France, Gabon, Kazakhstan,
and the United States, have organized their tax laws in a code.112 While
France has a tax code, many other civil law countries remain without tax
Negarit Gazeta, Year 9, No. 34 (Eth.); Ministry of Mines and Energy, Directive to Determine
the type and quantity of vehicles to be imported free of duty for mining projects, Sene 2001
E.C.(in Amharic, unpublished); Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Directive to Determine
conditions for Duty Free Importation of vehicles by tour operators and tour guides, Ginbot
2000 (in Amharic) (unpublished).
110. See Investment Incentives and Investment Areas Reserved for Domestic
Investors of 2003, Article 4, Council of Ministers Regulations No. 84, Negarit Gazeta, Year
9, No. 34 (Eth.), available at http://www.ecaa.gov.et/upload/laws/Investment%20Incentives
%20and%20Investment%20Areas%20.pdf.
111. Victor Thuronyi, Drafting Tax Legislation, in 1 TAX LAW DESIGN AND DRAFTING
79, supra note 30.
112. Id. at 80 n.29.
codes.113 The United States has a tax code although it is a common law
country.114
Organization of tax laws in a code has many advantages. Judged purely
in terms of accessibility and intelligibility, the organization of rules in a
formal code with logically coherent arrangement of rules is without doubt
the most preferred form of rule organization. By organizing all general areas
of definitions and administrative provisions in a single section, codes help
eliminate duplication of definitions and administrative provisions in
individual pieces of legislation.115 Codes overcome the possible treatment of
general definitions and administrative provisions in separate pieces of tax
legislations and help avoid differing and at times conflicting
interpretations.116
Codification of tax laws also helps to rationalize the organization of the
whole tax system because in a code system one is forced to think of the
whole, of the forest rather than just the trees. And more importantly,
codification facilitates compliance by taxpayers because taxpayers know
they have all the tax laws before them when they consult them.117 Finally,
where laws are organized in a code, subsequent amendments can be
automatically consolidated into it by adding sections or articles to it or
repealing or replacing the language of the Code.118 This process of
amendment—called “textual amendment”—is obviously desirable for it
spares many a taxpayer from the uncertainty of what the law is.119
Organizing tax laws in a tax code is not always desirable, even if
possible. Only rules of general application with the power to endure the test
of time can be organized in codes, while ephemeral rules should be
contained in specific tax laws that are more amenable to frequent revisions
and amendments.120 Some countries that do not have tax codes have opted
113. Id. at 81.

114. As the U.S. experience attests, having a tax code is no guarantee to simplicity of
taxation. See Michael J. Graetz, 100 Million Unnecessary Returns: A Fresh Start for the U.S.
Tax System, 112 YALE L.J. 261, 261-310 (2002); see also SANFORD M. GUERIN & PHILIP F.
POSTLEWAITE, PROBLEMS AND MATERIALS IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION 885 (6th ed. 2002);
THURONYI, supra note 33, at 17-19.
115. Thuronyi, supra note 111, at 80.
116. Id.
117. Id. at 81.
118. Id.
119. Id. at 81-82. The organization of tax laws in a code would have received
endorsement from Adam Smith who, in his famous treatise “the Wealth of Nations,”
developed four maxims of a good tax system, one of which happens to be “certainty” of tax
obligations. Adam Smith thought his maxim of certainty so important as to place it above all
of the other maxims: “The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a
matter of so great importance, that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I
believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree
of uncertainty.” ADAM SMITH, AN ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH
OF NATIONS 778 (1937).
120. Thuronyi, supra note 111, at 81.
for the next best thing, i.e., consolidation, which by careful organization of
the separate tax laws with cross-references, achieves virtually the same
result as the tax codes.121 Another option, followed in some countries, is to
consolidate and issue tax rules of general application (e.g., administrative
provisions) in a “revenue” or “fiscal” law and flank these by an array of
individual tax legislations.122
In the organization of its formal laws, Ethiopia is squarely in the camp of
civil law countries. Since 1950s and 1960s, Ethiopia has organized most of
its civil, commercial, and criminal laws and procedures in codes. However,
many laws, most notably in the tax area, have remained outside the code
system of organization. The country has not attempted to organize the tax
laws since modern tax laws were introduced in the 1940s. The closest
Ethiopia has come to organizing tax laws into a systematic body of laws is
through the Consolidated Laws project, which was unfortunately terminated
in 1975.123 Since then, partial attempts were made to organize some tax
laws. Several pieces of tax legislations in the area of excise taxation were
brought together in 1990124 and similar attempts were made for income
taxes in the 2002 income tax reforms. Sadly, these attempts were soon
forgotten and the situation went back since then to the old system of issuing
piecemeal legislations whenever a need arises for revision of this or that tax
law. 125
121. Id.
122. See, e.g., id. (citing Germany as an example of a country that has a general
revenue or fiscal laws).
123. The Consolidated Laws of Ethiopia arranged legislations other than those in the
codes of Ethiopia by subjects, one of which was taxes. All taxes in force at the time were
consolidated by subject and any amendments to specific provisions were inserted after each
provision (under consolidation note), and what is more, the Consolidated Laws even included
some court decisions of the Ethiopian high courts and the Supreme Court (note of decision)
so readers of the laws would immediately know any amendments made to specific provision
and decisions reached on specific subject of tax law. But the Consolidated Laws of Ethiopia
was not an official publication of the Government at the time. It was initiated by the Faculty
of Law of Addis Ababa University in collaboration with the Office of the Prime Minister at
the time. Although Consolidated Laws was not official, its utility in making tax legislations
accessible was undeniable. The Consolidated Laws of Ethiopia was in part an attempt to
systematically organize laws outside the codes of Ethiopia but the project was discontinued
after 1975 and has since never been revived; the 1975 Supplement of the Consolidated Laws
of Ethiopia appeared with a strange apology for consolidating laws of the feudal regime. It
was evident that this project would not be viewed kindly by the new socialist regime. See
FACULTY OF LAW, HAILE SELLASSIE I UNIV., CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF ETHIOPIA (Beyenne
Abdi ed., Commercial Printing Press, Supp. I 1975).
124. See Sales Tax Council of State Special Decree of 1990, Proclamation No. 16,
Negarit Gazeta, Year 49, No. 11 (Eth.).
125. In 2008 alone, several tax law amendments were issued separately. See Income
Tax Proclamation of Ethiopia of 2008, Proclamation No. 608, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15, No.
5; Value Added Tax of 2008, Proclamation No. 609, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15, No. 6 (Eth.);
Turnover Tax of 2008. Proclamation No. 611, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15, No. 8 (Eth.); Excise
Tax of 2008, Proclamation No. 610, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15, No. 7 (Eth.), available at
The tax laws of Ethiopia are presently found scattered not just in
different tax laws but in other laws of Ethiopia. Many other laws of Ethiopia
contain tax rules and provisions. In some forms of legislations, tax matters
feature significantly while in others tax matters may appear in one or two
articles in a body of legislation dealing with many other matters, taxation
being one insignificant side note. Tax rules are found in significant numbers
in investment laws, for obvious reasons. Tax incentives are some of the
major instruments of attracting investment (domestic or foreign) and it is no
surprise that the rules about tax incentives occupy a central position in these
laws.126 In many other laws of Ethiopia, however, tax rules may appear in
one or two articles, if at all.127
To date, the Ethiopian tax legislation field is chaotic, disorganized,
uncoordinated and worse, making it difficult for an average taxpayer to
make sense of her obligations under the various tax laws in force. Because
tax laws are uncoordinated, most tax legislations repeat certain provisions as
if they were not already provided for in other tax legislations. One area
where so much ink could surely have been saved is in the definition
sections, where certain terms appear repetitively as if they were not already
defined in another tax law. One can, for example, take the definition of
“body” for tax purposes—which is found in many tax proclamations of
Ethiopia. There is reason to believe that the definition of “body” should be
uniform for all tax laws, but because of the absence of a tradition of having
certain general tax laws, we find ourselves reading the same definition
repeated in so many tax laws of Ethiopia.128 The same can be said for the
definition of terms like “person,” “related person,” and “authority” in
different tax laws of Ethiopia.
Similarly, administrative provisions (which are of general application)
are repeated in individual legislations without reference to other legislations
–something that could have been avoided had Ethiopia had something like
“general tax administration” law or “general fiscal” law, as in some
http://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/procno-610-2008-excise-tax-amendment.pdf (last
visited Nov. 11, 2011); Stamp Duty of 2008, Proclamation No. 612, Negarit Gazeta, Year 15,
No. 9 (Eth.); Council of Ministers Income Tax of 2009, Regulation No. 164 (Eth.).
126. See, e.g., Council of Ministers Regulations on Investment Incentives and
Investment Areas Reserved for Domestic Investors of 2003, Articles 4-11, Proclamation No.
127. See, e.g., The Labor Proclamation of 2003, Article 112, Proclamation No. 377,
Negarit Gazeta, Year 10, No. 12 (Eth.); Public Servants Pension of 2003, Article 51,
Proclamation No. 345, Negarit Gazeta, Year 9, No. 65(Eth.); Proclamation to Provide for the
Issuance of Government Bonds of 1968, Article 6, Proclamation No. 172, Negarit Gazeta,
Year 20, No. 11 (Eth.); Proclamation to Provide the Issuance of Government Bonds of 1969,
Article 7, Proclamation No. 262, Negarit Gazeta, Year 28, No. 12 (Eth.).
128. Compare the definition of ‘body’ in the Income Tax in Proclamation No. 286,
supra note 43, art. 2(2) with the almost identical definitions in the Value Added Tax in
Proclamation No. 285, supra note 24, art. 2(5) and in the Excise Tax of 2008 Proclamation
No. 307, Article 2(3), Proclamation No. 307, Federal Negarit Gazeta, Year 9, No. 21 (Eth.).
countries. The result of these repetitions has at times been the provision of
incompatible or contradictory administrative procedures in different tax
legislations of Ethiopia. We may cite a few examples to illustrate the
problems. In the Income Tax and VAT proclamations, taxpayers dissatisfied
with assessment of tax must first appeal to the Tax Appeal Commission
before going to courts, but in the Stamp Duty Proclamation of 1998,
taxpayers could appeal directly to the High Court from the assessment made
by the Tax Authority. This procedural discrepancy was later discovered and
corrected by an amendment.129 Such a discrepancy was probably created
inadvertently, but these kinds of errors are inevitable when similar matters
are to be dealt with in individual legislations. Similarly, there is some
discrepancy in the administrative schemes of complaints handling in
disputes involving stamp duties and other types of taxes. In many other tax
disputes, an administrative tribunal called the “Review Committee” has
been established since 2002, but the tribunal is not available for disputes
involving stamp duties. Such a discrepancy can only be explained by the
existence of separate legislations pertaining to the same matter, namely
dispute settlement.
Ethiopia has an admirable track record in organizing some of its modern
laws into codes, which have stood the test of time, but it has not followed
this with respect to tax laws. What has prevented Ethiopia from collecting
its general tax provisions in a single body of rules? It has in part to do with
the approach to reform taken with respect to taxes, which is different from
the approach taken in many other aspects of Ethiopian law. The approach to
tax reform has been one of gradualism or incrementalism, which piles one
amendment over another until the original tax legislation is eventually
obliterated as a result of numerous subsequent amendments to the original
legislations. This approach to tax reform has for so long prevented
Ethiopian tax reformers from looking at tax laws in their totality. Not even
the comprehensive tax reforms of 2002 could overcome this problem of
obsessing with individual sections of separate tax legislations rather than the
impact of the amendment or revisions of a part upon the consistency of the
whole.
B. The Sources of Tax law
1. Tax Proclamations and Regulations
Most substantive and procedural rules pertaining to taxation flow from

tax proclamations and regulations. Tax proclamations are quite easily the
most important sources of substantive tax obligations in Ethiopia. Some tax
129. Stamp Duty of 2008, Article 2(2), Proclamation No. 612, Negarit Gazeta, Year
15, No. 9 (Eth.).
proclamations are bulkier and more detailed than others. Some have layers
of subsidiary legislations under them and others are their lonely self.
The difference between tax proclamations and regulations is more a
matter of form than substance. To be sure, tax regulations are derivative
legislations—issued only pursuant to the authority given in tax
proclamations. But in terms of the subject matters covered, there is really
very little difference between tax proclamations and regulations. We may be
predisposed to associate tax proclamations with more substantive (not to say
weightier) matters than tax regulations but the situation on the ground is
really haphazard.
In theory, tax regulations should be limited to details and technical
matters130 but in practice tax regulations cover as many substantive issues as
the tax proclamations. Upon reading some provisions, we wish some
provisions in tax regulations were addressed in tax proclamations and some
provisions in tax proclamations were relegated to the regulations.131 The
subject matter of tax exemptions is a perfect example of how little
difference exists between the subject matters of tax proclamations and
regulations. Tax exemptions are found in both the tax proclamations and
regulations. Indeed, we may attribute as many tax exemptions to the
regulations as to the proclamations.132 In the end the one reliable and
surefire distinction between tax proclamations and tax regulations is that the
130. See 2 JAMES C.N PAUL & CHRISTOPHER CLAPHAM, ETHIOPIAN CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT 532 (Faculty of Law Haile Sellassie I University Addis Ababa in association
with Oxford University Press Addis Ababa ed., 1972); see also K. BOELE WOELKI & J. H. M.
VAN ERP, GENERAL REPORTS OF THE XVIITH CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF
COMPARITIVE LAW—RAPPORTS GÉNÉRAUX DU XVIIE CONGRÈS DE L’ACADÉMIE
INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT COMPARÉ (2007), reprinted in Henry Ordower, General Report,
15 MICH. ST. J. INT’L L. 169, 177-78 (2007).
131. Consider the following provisions for contrast: Article 72 of the Income Tax
Proclamation (2002) requires taxpayers to include certain details in the income tax
assessment notification (gross income, taxable income, rates, taxes due, penalty, interest, etc)
and Article 3 of the Income Tax Regulations (2002) lists the types of income from
employment that are exempted from employment income tax (medical allowance,
transportation allowance, traveling allowance, etc). Article 72 deals with a matter that is
purely procedural and technical while Article 3 is as substantive as it can get. If we seriously
think about it, Article 3 of the Regulations should have been included in the Income Tax
Proclamation and Article 72 could have been safely relegated to the Regulations. The same
subject matter is sometimes treated in tax proclamations and sometimes in tax regulations.
The rate and method of depreciation is determined for income tax purposes in the Income
Tax Proclamation, while the same subject matter is determined in a directive for purposes of
exemptions from customs duties; the rate of depreciation of vehicles under the Income Tax
Proclamation is 20% while under the customs directives, it is 10%; compare Article 23 of
Income Tax Proclamation No. 286/2002 with Ministry of Revenues Directive No. 3/1996
E.C., (in Amharic) (unpublished).
132. For example, the exemptions from employment income tax for transportation,
traveling, hardship, and medical allowances are found in the income tax regulations, not in
the Proclamations. See Income Tax Regulation No. 78, supra note 43, art. 3.
former pass through the scrutiny of the parliament while the latter are issued
by the Council of Ministers.
The whole idea of delegating power to issue regulations to an executive
body, like the Council of Ministers, is in order to attend to details that
cannot be dealt with in tax proclamations.133 But ironically, tax regulations
in Ethiopia are issued almost at the same time (or immediately thereafter) as
the tax proclamations. The Council can hardly have time to consider and
develop the technical details needed to complete the tax proclamation in the
interval between the issuance of tax proclamations and tax regulations. So
the wisdom of issuing some rules in the tax regulations as opposed to in the
tax proclamations is questionable. And the tax regulations have in the past
been as inflexible as the tax proclamations. Indeed the regulations are
revised less frequently than the tax proclamations, which should have been
the other way around. One must therefore wonder if the tax regulations are
issued for the objectives they are intended for, which is to give the
executive some flexibility to provide for details as the changes dictate. One
would also expect the regulations to be more numerous and voluminous, but
in practice the proclamations actually far outnumber the regulations and
they are more voluminous.134
2. Tax Directives
Tax directives do not get as much attention in academic writing and

court cases as they deserve but they are issued in large numbers by
administrative agencies or bodies associated with taxation. In the galaxy of
laws in Ethiopia, tax directives occupy a rank below tax regulations which
are issued by the Council of Ministers. Both the tax proclamations and tax
regulations of Ethiopia anticipate that the legislative field of taxes is hardly
complete until tax directives are issued covering a wide-range of issues.135
133. Legislative bodies delegate certain legislative powers to the executive bodies for
different reasons: pressure of work, to achieve flexibility and for reasons of technicality. See
PAUL & CLAPHAM, supra note 130, at 532; see also Henry Ordower, General Report, 15
MICH. ST. J. INT’L L. 169, 177-78 (2007).
134. At least in the tax area, one cannot help feeling that the whole business of the
Council of Ministers issuing tax regulations was more a matter of following the custom than
the commitment to looking after the details and technical matters. The proof for this is that
the regulations issued simultaneously with the Income Tax Proclamation of 2002 simply
continued the tradition established back in the 1950s and 1960s. Compare Council of
Ministers of 2002, Regulation No. 78 (Eth.) with Council of Ministers of 1962, Regulation
No. 258 (Eth.).
135. There are many provisions in Ethiopian tax laws that delegate powers of rule
making to executive bodies. See e.g., Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, arts.
13(d)(iii), 13(e), 42, 46, 68(2), 68(3), 69(2), 114(2), 117; Income Tax Regulation No. 286,
supra note 43, arts. 3(h), 24(3), 27; VAT Proclamation, supra note 24, arts. 8(3), 16(2),
22(2), 22(6), 22(7), 30, 64.
Tax directives are issued by either ministerial bodies (most notably the
Ministry of Finance) or other public bodies organized as authorities or
commissions. In the past, tax directives were far and few in between, but
directives have increased in sheer number and diversity in recent times. All
the public bodies connected with tax administration have been busy issuing
one or another form of directives in the area of taxes. Recent tax
administration reforms have clearly had an impact in this regard. With the
strengthening of the tax administration bodies, we have seen an increasing
number of directives in taxation.
The sheer number and diversity of these directives makes it difficult to
classify them, but classify them we must if we wish to understand the role
of directives in the Ethiopian tax system. In terms of the administrative
bodies that issue these directives, we may find tax directives from
authorities as diverse as Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Education.136
Many of the tax directives hail from the Ministry of Finance, but there are
significant numbers of directives from the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs
Authority (ERCA or its predecessors). The tax laws authorize various
ministries and governmental agencies to issue directives on issues related to
taxation: the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Justice (on the subject of the
composition, membership, etc of the Tax Appeal Commission),137 the
Ethiopian Investment Agency (on the subject of tax incentives accorded to
investors), and National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE) (on the subject of special
technical reserves required of financial institutions and deductible under the
income tax law).138
Because of the extensive delegating-provisions scattered throughout the
tax laws of Ethiopia, the directives issued by administrative agencies cover
a wide-range of subjects, so much so that it is difficult to pin them down
into categories or patterns. One way of making sense of the field of
directives is to employ a classification adopted in other tax systems. A
useful classification may be that between “legislative,” “interpretative,” and
“procedural” directives, as developed by the U.S. courts for “regulations,”
which are the equivalent of directives in Ethiopia.139 In the U.S., legislative
directives (regulations)140 are distinguished from interpretative ones in the
136. For directive from the Ministry of Education, see Ministry of Education Higher
Education Institutions Cost Sharing Scheme of 1995. Directive No. 002 (Eth.) (in Amharic)
(unpublished).
137. Although the law authorizes the Ministry of Justice to issue directives regarding
the composition, membership, etc of the Tax Appeal Commission, we have yet to see one.
138. See Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 26. One characteristic
of tax directives (not a very important one) is that they are issued by diverse administrative
bodies. Id.
139. See FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 132; See also JAMES W. PRATT &
WILLIAM N. KULSRUD, INDIVIDUAL TAXATION, 2.22 (Dame Publications, Inc. 1999).
140. “Regulations” in the U.S. is the equivalent of our “directives.” In the hierarchy of
Ethiopian laws, “regulations” occupy a higher rank than directives, because while
sense that “legislative” directives may “create, modify or extinguish rights

and obligations” of taxpayers, and “set down additional substantive
requirements.”141 “Legislative” regulations have the “force and effect of
law” unless the issuing authority has exceeded “the scope of its delegated
power or is contrary to the law, or is unreasonable” in issuing these types of
regulations.142 Legislative regulations that pass muster according to these
standards are generally binding both upon the IRS and taxpayers.143
“Interpretative” regulations are not accorded the “force and effect of law”
although courts have attached considerable weight to them arguing that
these regulations “express a long-continued administrative practice” and
constitute “body of experience and informed judgment.”144 “Procedural
Regulations” (directives)—identified by the subject matters treated in
them—give directions to taxpayers on what information they need to supply
and how tax administration is internally organized and conducted.145
As administrative jurisprudence is yet to develop in Ethiopia, no
distinction is drawn among directives. If we make distinctions based on
jurisprudence developed elsewhere, it is not because the administrative
agencies that issue directives are aware of the distinctions nor because
Ethiopian courts know them as such but because it is a helpful heuristic
device to make sense of the world of tax directives in Ethiopia. All types of
directives exist in an undifferentiated mass in practice. There are as many
legislative (perhaps more) directives as there are the interpretative and
procedural ones in Ethiopia. If we define legislative directives as those
issued pursuant to a specific authority in the higher ranked tax laws
(proclamations and regulations), almost all directives in Ethiopia will
qualify as legislative directives because we can trace the authority for
issuing all directives to provisions in higher ranked tax laws.
A fact that is seldom acknowledged in the Ethiopian tax system is how
frequently the Ethiopian tax administration engages in interpretation of tax
laws through the various directives it issues.146 There are many tax
directives which define, restrict, and expand upon the meanings of terms
“regulations” are issued by the Council of Ministers, “directives” are issued by individual
ministries, authorities or commissions.
141. FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 132; 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative
Law and Procedure § 87 (1983).
142. FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 132.
143. Id.
144. Id.; Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), cited in PRATT & KULSRUD,
supra note 139, at 2.22.
145. PRATT & KULSRUD, supra note 139, at 2.22.
146. Tax administrations have made considerable forays into the interpretative field as
a result of the incomplete or contradictory and unworkable nature of many of the provisions
of tax laws and the impossibility of immediate judicial clarification, but doubts are raised
over the impartiality of the tax authorities, and courts are generally seen as the last arbiters in
matters of interpretation. See Notes and Legislation, Judicial Review of Regulations and
Rulings under the Revenue Acts, 52 HARV. L. REV. 1163, 1163-64 (1939).
and concepts mentioned in principal tax legislations. These directives define

the scope of benefits and/or obligations mentioned in principal tax
legislations. They define technical concepts that are left undefined or
ambiguous in the principal laws.
An income tax directive issued in 2003, for example, states that
“technical services,” which are mentioned as taxable in the Income Tax
Proclamation, include “satellite services” supplied by providers abroad.147
Another income tax directive, issued by the Ministry of Revenues, clarifies
the scope of transportation allowance excluded from the income tax and
restricts the amount of allowance that can at any one time be excluded from
the tax. 148
We may also find directives whose chief objective is to explain
administrative procedures, help taxpayers understand the procedural steps
needed to pay taxes, or simply provide details of information that taxpayers
need to furnish in order to fulfill their various obligations. For lack of a
better term, we may call these procedural directives.149 The role of
procedural directives is in the main to assist taxpayers in the understanding
of tax laws—applied to tax laws, this is no mean task. They help bring the
technical and complex language of tax laws down to the level of the average
taxpayer. They simplify, clarify, and explain tax proclamations and
regulations. A directive issued in 2003, for example, simplifies the process
of income tax computation for all the classes of income taxpayers in
Ethiopia.150 The directive simplifies the computation of tax by providing a
much easier table of computation for schedule A, B, C, and D taxpayers. It
also provides directives on subjects like accounting year, tax declaration
forms, and rewards for providing information leading to the discovery of
undeclared income. This type of directive adds very little to the substance of
the income tax laws, but it helps taxpayers and tax administrators wade
through the complex structure of the tax system.151
The third types of directives– the legislative directives—are actually
more numerous than the purely interpretative directives. We may identify
these directives either by their targets or subjects treated in them. By their
targets, we may distinguish specific legislative directives from general
147. MINISTRY OF FIN. & ECON. DEV. (1996) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished
directive).
148. MINISTRY OF REVENUES (1995) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished directive).
149. Procedural directives may also be called “administrative” directives. See Notes
and Legislation, supra note 146, at, 1163.
150. FED. INLAND REVENUES AUTH., Directive No. 1/2003 (Eth.) (in Amharic)
(unpublished directive), available at http://www.mofed.gov.et/English/Pages/Home.aspx
(under “Featured Information,” then click on “Directives on Finance & Property
Administration”).
151. For procedural directives, one may also look at Directive No. 46/2007, a
directive issued to provide for the use of sales register machines, and Directive No. 51/2007,
its amendment; or Directive No. 11/2008, a directive to provide for the Issue and
Implementation of Tax Identification Numbers.
legislative directives. Specific legislative directives aim at specific

taxpayers and are usually limited by time. These types of directives are most
common among directives that grant tax exemptions. Directives that exempt
the Ethiopian Airlines from all taxes on its aircraft purchases, Cuban
expatriates working for the Ministry of Health from the payment of income
tax, construction materials for low-cost housing projects of Addis Ababa
City Administration from the payment of VAT, are all examples of specific
legislative tax directives.152 Specific tax directives are often sent as letters or
memos to members of the relevant tax administration for purposes of giving
full effect to the contents of the directives. As such, these directives do not
contain much of the formalism that characterizes legal documents. They are
usually not made public and as such they are probably only known to the
relevant members of the tax administration and of course the beneficiaries
of the tax exemptions.
General legislative tax directives, on the other hand, are easily
identifiable as legal texts because they are couched in a language of formal
law, with all the paraphernalia of legal jargons, definitions, and legal
provisions (some even contain preambles stating the general objectives of
the directives). Many of these directives are numbered by the issuing
authorities, although they are no longer published in the Negarit Gazeta—
the official outlet of legal publications in Ethiopia.
By the subjects commonly treated in general legislative tax directives,
we may identify two types of directives—those that grant tax exemptions
and those that tend to increase the obligations of taxpayers. One feature of
Ethiopian tax system is the wide diffusion of the power of tax exemption
powers. The Ethiopian parliament has granted a number of tax exemptions
in proclamations, but has also delegated extensive exemptions powers to the
Council of Ministers as well as the various administrative agencies of the
Federal Government. The general legislative directives that exempt
taxpayers are the result of these delegations by the Parliament. The Ministry
of Finance has, for example, been empowered to exempt goods and services
from VAT and the Ministry has so far issued directives to exempt imports
or domestic supplies of medicine and medical supplies, bread and milk,
agricultural inputs and stationeries.153 There are also general legislative
directives which tend to increase the obligations of taxpayers.
Administrative agencies obtain the power to issue these types of directives,
like those that exempt taxpayers, from the tax proclamations and sometimes
152. See MINISTRY OF FIN. & ECON. DEV. (1998) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished
directive); MINISTRY OF REVENUES (1998) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished directive);
MINISTRY OF FIN. & ECON. DEV. (1996) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished directive).
153. See MINISTRY OF FIN. & ECON. DEV. (1995) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished
directive).
the tax regulations. These types of directives are particularly prominent

among VAT directives.154
Directives that grant exemptions are virtually unknown among the wider
population of taxpayers, presumably because their effect is to relieve some
taxpayers from payment of taxes. They may have an impact upon the
overall equitability of the tax system, but tax equity is too abstract a matter
at the moment to lead to controversies. On the contrary, those directives that
tend to increase the obligations of taxpayers (as in the examples given
above) stir controversies among taxpayers—which is as it is to be
expected.155
Directives have increased in sheer size and numbers in recent times,
partly as a result of the reorganization of the tax authorities. The size of tax
directives is estimated to be at least three times thicker than that of tax
proclamations and regulations combined. While directives are clearly useful
in making tax laws more intelligible to average taxpayers, a worrying
development of recent times is that almost all of the directives remain
unpublished and therefore inaccessible to the majority of taxpayers.
Ethiopia has certainly regressed in this regard. In the past, all laws of the
government, including directives and the other subsidiary forms of
legislation like public notices, were issued in the Negarit Gazeta (the
official legal gazette of the Ethiopian Government).156 Even appointments of
public officials were published in the Negarit Gazeta. Nowadays, only
proclamations and regulations are issued in the Negarit Gazeta, with most of
other subsidiary forms of legislations kept in the files of respective
154. The Ministry of Revenues (the predecessor of ERCA) has issued a number of
directives which are perceived by the taxpaying community as increasing their tax
obligations. The Ministry has issued directives to extend the registration obligations to
certain types of business en bloc: flour factories, jewelry stores, computer and electronic
stores, plastic products factories, shoe manufacturers, leather products stores, and contractors
have been subjected to obligatory registration regardless of their annual turnover as a result
of these directives. See MINISTRY OF REVENUES, FDRE, Ref. No. 01/A29/306/45, Sene 17
(1995) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished directive); MINISTRY OF REVENUES, FDRE, Ref. No.
2A VAT—72/42, Nehassie 27, (1995) (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished directive).
155. By the way, these controversies are rarely fought in courts because of the
absence of administrative laws that show taxpayers the ways of challenging administrative
directives. Taxpayers are therefore reduced to raising their complaints informally to the tax
authorities or voicing their objections in newspapers. See Hilna Alemu, Business Community
Twice Dissatisfied with Customs Authority Talks, ADDIS FORTUNE (Sept. 13, 2009),
http://www.addisfortune.com/Vol%2010%20No%20489%20Archive/Business%20Commun
ity%20Twice%20Dissatisfied%20with%20Customs%20Authority%20Talks.htm; Over 500
Face Tax Authorities to Question Enforcement, FORTUNE, July 2, 2009 (Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia).
156. The Negarit Gazeta establishment Proclamation No. 1/1942 required the
publication of proclamations, decrees, laws, rules, regulations, orders, notices and subsidiary
legislations; it also required publication of notices concerning appointments, dismissals,
titles, decorations, and honors and notices for the general information concerning matters of
public interest. See The Establishment of the Negarit Gazeta of 1942, Establishment
Proclamation No. 1, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 1 (Eth.).
government authorities.157 The result is that many taxpayers are unaware

that these directives even exist let alone understand their imports. Because
directives are no longer published in official gazettes, the tax authorities do
not show as much attention to the language of directives as they do with the
proclamations and regulations. A recent ruling by the Cassation Division of
the Federal Supreme Court to the effect that directives do not have to be
published in the Negarit Gazeta to have a legally binding effect only helps
to entrench a disturbing development of administrative agencies issuing
directives without having to publicize them in Negarit Gazeta.158
So far we have focused upon the content of directives and the various
forms they may assume in practice. Another issue of perhaps no less
importance in the field of tax directives is the procedures for issuing
directives. The procedures for issuing tax proclamations are well-
established by law, as the Ethiopian Parliament has issued law-making
procedures for laws approved by the Parliament.159 Some tax systems have
well-established and detailed administrative rules for issuing tax directives
or regulations. In the U.S. tax system, for example, the U.S. Treasury first
publishes a proposed regulation (the equivalent of Ethiopian “directive”
here) in the form of “Notice of Proposed Rule Making.”160 It then waits for
at least thirty days to allow taxpayers to comment on the proposed rule.
After a review of taxpayer comments, the proposed regulation (directive) is
revised and re-proposed for another round of commenting by taxpayers, and
only after that is it issued in its final form. There are no known procedures
for issuing directives in Ethiopia. The administrative agencies empowered
to issue directives (e.g. the Ministry of Finance) are not bound to follow any
specific procedures before they issue directives. They may issue directives
without consulting anybody or they may consult some of the stakeholders
when they feel like it. It may be necessary to develop procedures so that all
interested parties (or stakeholders, as the cliché has it) are consulted before
a directive becomes a law and binding upon taxpayers. Consultations give
taxpayers the opportunity to submit views, data, and arguments to the tax
157. This in spite of a law that requires all laws of the Federal Government to be
published in the Federal Negarit Gazeta. See Federal Negarit Gazeta Establishment of 1995,
Article 2(2), Proclamation No. 3, Negarit Gazeta, Year 1, No. 3 (Eth.).
158. Eth. Revenues & Customs Auth. v. Daniel Mekonnen, file no. 43781 (Fed. Sup.
Ct., Cassation Div. 2002) (Eth.), available at
http://www.fsc.gov.et/decisionPages/cassation/volume%2010.pdf (case is only available in
Amharic).
159. See Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia House of Peoples’ Representatives
Working Procedure and Members’ Code of Conduct of 2005, Article 14(2)(b), 15(2), 16(4),
Proclamation No. 470/2005, Negarit Gazeta, Year 11, No. 60, available at
http://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/470-ae.pdf (last visited Nov. 11, 2011).
160. See GUERIN & POSTLEWAITE, supra note 114, at 30. See also PRATT & KULSRUD,
supra note 139, 2.21ff; FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 131. See Sanford M. Guerin
and Philip F. Postlewaite, supra note 114, at 30; see also Pratt and Kulsrud, supra note 139,
pp. 2.21ff; Federal Tax Course, supra note 69, at 131.
authorities enabling the latter to make appropriate revisions and take

corrective measures or even withdraw directives that are
counterproductive.161
3. Advance-rulings
Advance rulings, or administrative rulings, have become important

instruments in the implementation of tax laws in many tax systems.162
Developed tax systems have had a long tradition of issuing advance rulings
upon request.163 And many developing countries have incorporated
procedures for seeking authoritative statements from the tax authorities
through advance rulings.164 Advance rulings provide taxpayers with the
opportunity “to obtain a more or less binding statement from the tax
authorities concerning the treatment of a transaction or a series of
contemplated future (sometimes past) actions or transactions.”165Advance
rulings are fact-specific opinions of the Tax Administration in response to a
taxpayer request based on contemplated transactions. Since they are fact
specific, a taxpayer is generally required to give a full and fair
representation of all the relevant facts.166
The practice of issuing advance rulings in other tax systems is developed
to “avoid conflict and litigation by establishing in advance an authoritative
interpretation of the tax law, so that a taxpayer has full security in the way
the tax law will work out in a specific situation.”167 Rulings are similar to
what courts would do in specific cases except that rulings make use of
hypothetical cases or transactions and they apply to cases with similar
factual situations set out in hypothetical case or transaction of a ruling.
Their objective is to inform and guide taxpayers and tax officers.168 They
inform taxpayers of the position of Tax Administration on a certain
transaction and “help avoid future controversy and litigation” with the tax
administration and they promote voluntary compliance by taxpayers.169
According to Frans Vanistendael,170 a systematic approach to the practice
of advance rulings must respond to the following questions:
161. See GUERIN & POSTLEWAITE, supra note 114, at 30.

163. See id. (citing countries such as Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom and the United States).
164. Countries like Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, Mauritius, and Tanzania from
Africa have rules or procedures for obtaining authoritative advance rulings from the tax
authorities of the respective countries.
165. CARLO ROMANO, INT’L BUREAU OF FISCAL DOCUMENTATIONS, ADVANCE TAX
RULINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW: TOWARDS A EUROPEAN TAX RULINGS SYSTEM 78 (2002).
167. Id.
168. 47 A.C.J.S. Internal Revenue §9 (2009).
169. Id.
i) whether the ruling is limited to the taxpayer who requested the

ruling, or whether others can also rely upon the ruling provided
their factual situations fit in it;
ii) whether the ruling is regularly published or not;
iii) whether the ruling is public or private, with the distinctions;
iv) the administrative official issuing the advance rulings;
v) whether the issuing of advance ruling is confined to the central

Tax authorities or regional or local authorities can also issue the
rulings in their respective jurisdiction (an important consideration
in federal systems);
vi) the procedures for requesting advance rulings, and for deciding on
and issuing the rulings; and
vii) the circumstances under which the tax administration may change
its position as expressed in its advance ruling;
As it is to be expected, different tax systems approach “advance rulings”

differently, to the extent they recognize them in their tax administrations. In
some countries, advance rulings may be issued by a tax inspector,171 and in
other countries, tax administration cannot issue binding advance rulings at
all, because in these countries, the very idea of an administrative branch
issuing binding rulings goes against the principle of legality.172 Sweden
offers perhaps a unique example of a system in which an independent
council is established to entertain requests for and issue advance rulings.173
In some tax systems, the practice of rule-making has developed to such
an extent as to create various categories of rulings. The IRS (the equivalent
of ERCA) in the U.S. issues a number of guidelines in the form of rulings
for taxpayers. The most prominent examples of rulings are the “revenue
rulings,” “revenue procedures,” and “private letter rulings.”174 Revenue
rulings are issued in the form of memorandum of law (containing issues to
be addressed, the facts pertaining to these issues and a legal analysis of the
issues).175 Revenue rulings are official pronouncements of the IRS and are
published in the official publication of the IRS—Internal Revenue
171.Id. (citing Netherlands as an example).

172.Id.
173.Id. at 62.
174.JAMES R. LAPENTI, HUGH J. AULT & BRIAN J. ARNOLD, COMPARATIVE INCOME
TAXATION, A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 192 (3d ed. 2010).
175. Id.
Bulletin.176 Revenue Procedures explain the procedural issues that taxpayers

face in dealing with the IRS.177 Private letter rulings are addressed to a
specific taxpayer who has requested guidance from the IRS.178 They are
“written statements issued to a specific taxpayer interpreting and applying
tax laws to the taxpayer’s specific set of facts.”179
In the U.S., taxpayers may rely upon revenue rulings unless the law upon
which the ruling is based has changed.180 Taxpayers other than the taxpayer
to whom private letter rulings are addressed may not rely upon the position
of the IRS in private letter rulings.181 Both revenue rulings and letter rulings
mostly result from taxpayer requests for letter rulings. The difference is that
revenue rulings are extrapolations from the private rulings and are therefore
intended for the general population of taxpayers whose situations fall within
the factual transactions described in the revenue rulings.182
The practice of issuing advance rulings is not as well known and
established in Ethiopia as it has been in other countries. In fact, one cannot
even say that they exist as distinct legal categories. However, there have
been few occasions in which the Ethiopian tax authorities were was asked to
furnish what can only be described as an advance ruling in the
circumstances. It is not clear if the tax authorities were consciously engaged
in the practice of advance rulings or doing this just as a matter of
administrative courtesy.
In Employees of St. Paul Hospital v. Ministry of Health, a dispute arose
over the exclusion from taxable income of special allowances paid to
doctors and other staff of St. Paul Hospital in consideration of their
exposure to bad smells and other risks connected with their operation on
dead bodies.183 St. Paul Hospital used the expression “hardship allowance”
to refer to the special allowance paid to its employees to describe the special
hardship faced by these employees while operating on dead bodies. The
employees at St. Paul Hospital believed that this allowance should fall
within the meaning of “hardship allowance” as that expression is known in
the Income Tax Regulations of 2002 and demanded that the payments be
176. See FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 136. See also PRATT & KULSRUD,
supra note 139, at 2.23–2.24.
177. LAPENTI, supra note 174, at 192. See also FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69,
at 133; Individual Income Taxes, in WEST’S FEDERAL TAXATION 2-9 (Hoffman Willis Smith
ed., 1996).
178. LAPENTI, supra note 174, at 192.
179. FEDERAL TAX COURSE, supra note 69, at 134.
180. LAPENTI, supra note 174, at 192.
181. Id.
182. Sometimes, the IRS develops revenue rulings from technical advice to district
offices of the IRS, court decisions, suggestions from tax practitioner groups and various tax
publications. See WEST’S FEDERAL TAXATION, supra note 177, at 2-9.
183. For details, see Solomon Teshome, The Scope of Tax Exclusions under the
Ethiopian Employment Income Tax Regime, at 15ff, (2008) (unpublished Senior Thesis) (on
file with Addis Ababa University Faculty of Law).
excluded from the base of the income tax.184 The people at the Ministry of
Health were not so certain.
The Ministry of Health wrote a letter to the Tax Administration asking
for its opinion on whether the special allowance constituted “hardship
allowance” within the meaning of the Income Tax Regulations. In an
internal memo written by the Legal Division of the Tax Authority and
addressed to the head of the Authority, which was eventually communicated
to the Ministry of Health, the Tax Authority sought to rely upon the
Amharic version of the Income Tax Regulations in which the expression
“hardship allowance” is rendered as “yebereha abel” in Amharic, which in
English literally means “desert allowance,” a much narrower and more
specific rendition than the English version of “hardship allowance.”185 The
position of the Tax Authority was that the meaning of hardship allowance
should be limited to payments made in consideration of extreme weather
conditions (the weather conditions may be too hot or too cold climates).
Upon receiving the letter from the Tax Authority, the Ministry of Health
and St. Paul Hospital decided to withhold tax due upon the special
allowance made to employees of St. Paul Hospital.
The case mentioned above involving the meaning of “hardship
allowance” and many cases like it would have been an excellent opportunity
for the Ethiopian tax administration to inform taxpayers in general about its
position on what the scope of hardship allowance is. It would also have
been an opportunity for developing a distinct legal category known
elsewhere as “advance rulings.”
The Tax Authority responds to taxpayers individually rather than
publishing its opinion to a general population of taxpayers.186 What we can
184. See Income Tax Regulation No. 78, supra note 43, art. 3(c).
185. The position of the head of the Tax Authority is incidentally consistent with the
rule of interpretation that gives precedence to the Amharic version in cases of conflict
between the English and Amharic versions of the law. See Federal Negarit Gazeta
Establishment of 1995, Article 2(4), Proclamation No. 3, Negarit Gazeta Year 1, No. 3 (Eth.),
available at http://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/proc-no-3-1995-federal-negarit-
gazeta-establishment.pdf (last visited Nov. 11, 2011).
186. There was reportedly a similar issue over the meaning of “hardship allowance”
before the St. Paul Hospital case, this time involving employees of Muger Cement Factory.
Muger Cement Factory paid (or used to anyway) its employees a special allowance for
undergoing exposure to the heat and dust of heavy machinery, and for lack of a better
expression, this allowance was called “hardship allowance.” Informally, some officers of the
Tax Authority stuck to the literal meaning of “hardship allowance” in the Amharic version of
the Income Tax Regulations and rejected the exclusion of the allowance from the income tax.
Solomon Teshome, who wrote his senior essay on exclusions from employment income tax,
gives another instance in which the meaning of hardship allowance can be a source of
controversy. He offers the example of a collective agreement in the Ethiopian
Telecommunications Corporation in which the expression of hardship allowance is used to
refer to payments for not just enduring the hardship of harsh weather conditions but also of
high cost of living. The first allowance paid for harsh weather conditions (for places like
Dalol Depression and Gambella) is rendered in Amharic as “yebereha abel”—consistent
say at this moment is that many of the issues surrounding advance rulings
(including the question of its very existence) are not yet settled in the
Ethiopian tax system. We don’t know if these rulings are binding or even
persuasive, whether they should be published (and be available in the public
domain), which administrative unit should issue these rulings, and questions
of that nature.
Granted that these practices are not yet fully developed in the Ethiopian
tax system, there is a lot to be said for their development in Ethiopia. Even
where they are merely persuasive, advance rulings have a lot of advantages
to commend them. They cut down future conflicts considerably by
informing taxpayers in advance of the position of the Tax Authority on
certain transactions. They cut down costs arising from litigation, helping the
courts to concentrate only on matters over which there is disagreement on
the ruling. They also build the capacity of the Tax Authority to expand on
the jurisprudence of taxation in the country. Advance rulings can also be
used as precursors to what the Tax Administration may legislate through
directives, if need be. What is originally couched in the advance rulings
may crystallize into directives, putting the rules on a firmer and more solid
ground than hastily concocting rules to suit the times.
4. Administrative Publications, Tax Guides, Tax Forms, and

Public Notices
It has become an unavoidable feature of modern tax administration to

assist in tax administration with voluminous administrative commentaries,
manuals, guides, and circular letters. Some of these administrative
commentaries, manuals, guides, and circular letters are available for internal
use only while others are published as exegesis for the taxpaying
community. Whether they go by the name of “statement of revenue
practice” (as in the U.K.), “interpretation bulletins” (as in Canada), “IRS
Publications” (as in the U.S.), or in general by the names of administrative
commentaries, instructions, guides, manuals, or circular letters, there is little
question that these materials are interpretative documents controlling the
behavior of countless tax administration officers and taxpayers.187 In those
countries where their legal status has been called into question, courts have
with the Amharic version of the Income Tax Regulations- while the second type of
allowance is rendered as “yenuro wudenet abel”—roughly translating into English as “cost of
living allowance.” But it is possible to render both as “hardship allowance” in English.
Whatever our position may be in each case, issues like these could have been resolved for all
taxpayers through the devices of “advance rulings” rather than through individual and
informal communications between taxpayers and the Tax Authority. See Solomon Teshome,
supra note 183, 19-20.
187. See Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 60; Federal Tax Course, supra note 69, at
135.
held them not to be binding upon the taxpayers.188 Should taxpayers choose
to rely upon interpretations put upon the various tax laws by the tax
administration, however, they have been held to be binding upon the
administration that issued them.189 If the tax administration inserts a
disclaimer in administrative commentaries, manuals, or guides, however, it
is difficult for taxpayers to invoke interpretation in these administrative
documents as authority.
Tax administration commentaries are not unknown in Ethiopian Tax
Administration. The introduction of the Value Added Tax in 2002 for the
first time was accompanied by the issuance of a VAT Guide for taxpayers
(and tax administrators) both in English and Amharic.190 The Ethiopian Tax
Authority also developed some manuals to help tax officers deal with some
murky and technical issues in their operations.191 The administrative
manuals are primarily for internal consumption of the tax administration
officers, and they are usually not made available to the taxpayers. In
addition, because Ethiopian Tax Authorities have yet to create their own
official publications, the tax guides that have so far surfaced appear only
informally and often remain unpublished. These manuals make constant
reference to the tax laws, but it is naive to expect that all the terms in these
manuals are consistent with the tax laws.
Supposing there is a challenge on their legality, should courts have
recourse to these manuals? And how far can taxpayers rely upon these
manuals? How public should these internal manuals be for taxpayers not
just to know what the tax authorities do, but also even to challenge them
when they find them to be inconsistent with the laws? How different is a tax
guide issued by the Tax Administration from a textbook written by a tax
expert for classrooms in the universities or even a consultancy firm for use
by its clients? These are, at the moment, unanswered questions because
taxpayers have never challenged the few administrative manuals and guides
issued by the Ethiopian Tax Administration. Besides, there are no
188. Courts in Belgium, Canada, Germany and Spain have specifically rejected
administrative interpretation of tax laws in administrative manuals, circular letter or guides.
See Vanistendael, supra note 30, at 60 n.208.
189. Id. at 60.
190. The Guide was reportedly developed by the drafter of Ethiopian VAT law—
Professor Alan Shenck- who must have realized the difficulties ahead in coming to terms
with this new form of taxation. The drafter produced the VAT Guide upon his own initiative
and not as a consequence of some tradition to provide a guide to newly introduced tax laws.
See Guide, Value Added Tax (VAT): Basic VAT Guide for Tax Payers, Tax Reform Office,
VAT Sub-Program (Addis Ababa) (June 2002) (on file with author).
191. These manuals include Collection Manual, Value-Added Tax Audit Manual, and
Assessment and Audit Operating Manual; See ETH. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Taxation in
Ethiopia, Jira Jebessa, Ethiopia, 2005; Ministry of Revenue, Federal Inland Revenue
Authority, Value-Added-Tax (VAT) Audit Manual, January 2005, Addis Ababa; Ministry of
Revenue, Federal Inland Revenue Authority, Assessment and Audit Operating Manual,
January 2005, Addis Ababa (unpublished).
administrative rules that fix the status and rank of administrative

publications in controlling the meaning of the various taxes in Ethiopia.
Apart from the tax guides and manuals, which are far and few between,
we have the tax forms, which should not be underestimated as
“interpretative” documents. More than even the tax guides or manuals, they
are essential in the implementation of the tax laws. Tax forms are
interpretative instruments, “perhaps the only interpretation that most people
ever see and read.”192 They are the ones that bring taxes from the firmament
of abstractions to the actuality of computation and payment of taxes. In the
words of Stanley Surrey, the tax forms perform the task of “compressing the
vast body of statutory and administrative material into the compact, readily
understood, and readily administered set of forms required for a mass
tax.”193
The tax forms are more numerous and widely available than the tax
guides and manuals. Many of the tax forms are issued in the form of
directives (for example, the directive cited above on computation of income
tax under the different schedules of Ethiopian income tax has tax forms
attached to it) and therefore assume the status of directives in Ethiopian tax
law hierarchy. But there are many more that are issued or reproduced
informally to help taxpayers cope with the many intricacies of tax laws.194
Again the legal status of tax forms in the interpretation of tax laws
(whether they come in the form of directives or not) is shrouded in mystery.
There has never been an occasion for challenging the tax forms in the past.
This is certainly not because the forms are unimpeachable. In fact, an expert
scan of these forms will reveal so many loopholes as to justify a serious
challenge to the forms.
Finally, we have the “public notices,” which are becoming more and
more common in the recent practices of Ethiopian Tax Administration. Like
the directives, public notices flow from a special provision in a higher law,
usually a directive.195 They are issued to a group of taxpayers to inform
them of their duty, say, of registration by a certain date. The Ethiopian Tax
Administration does not have its own regular publications in which these
192. Stanley S. Surrey, Treasury Department Regulatory Material under the Tax
Code, 7 POL’Y SCI. 517 (1976).
193. Id.
194. The following tax forms are issued via directives: a Directive on VAT invoices,
see Ministry of Revenues, (date unknown) (in Amharic, with English subtitles)
(unpublished); A directive on the Implementation of Income Tax Proclamation No. 1/1995
E.C., Federal Inland Revenue Authority (in Amharic, with English sub-titles) (unpublished).
There are many directives that are used informally within the tax authorities. See Excise Tax
Proclamation of 2002, Proclamation No. 307, Negarit Gazeta, Year 9, No. 20 (Eth.); Ministry
of Revenues, Federal Inland Revenue Authority Business Income Tax Declaration (with
Annex) (Eth.); Income Tax of 2002, Proclamation No. 286, Negarit Gazeta, Year 8, No. 34
(Eth.).
195. See Ministry of Revenues, Directive Issued to Provide for the Use of Sales
Register Machines of 2007, Directive No. 46 (Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished).
notices appear. Instead, Ethiopian tax authorities use daily and weekly
newspapers to reach the targeted taxpayers. Presently, the public notices are
published in Addis Zemen, the government Amharic daily newspaper.196
The question that arises with respect to public notices is once again
whether they have any legal significance. They are not entirely devoid of
legal significance if we examine their contents, although they look like
simple announcements. The public notices often set a deadline for
registration or for use of sales register machines which are connected to the
tax authorities as information transmitters. These deadlines may be
considered “unreasonable” or “unfair” but there are presently no
administrative procedures available to taxpayers to challenge these
notifications before administrative tribunals or courts.
5. Tax Dispute Settlement: Tax Cases as Sources of Law
As in many other countries, tax disputes in Ethiopia follow a slightly

different channel of dispute settlement from other forms of disputes.197 The
first opportunity taxpayers have to resolve disputes exists with the tax
administration itself—with the assessors, where most of the errors or
misunderstandings should be resolved. Taxpayers who find themselves in
disagreement with the tax administration have another opportunity once
again within the tax administration, but this time a body set up within the
tax administration composed of four members drawn from the different
units of the tax administration will entertain their case—the Review
196. One example of a public notice will suffice. Article 5 of Directive No. 46/2007 (a
Directive to Provide for the Use of Sales Register Machines) states that the Tax Authority
will announce the commencement period of the obligation to use sales register machines for
each category of taxpayers. A public notice was issued following this Directive informing
hotels, restaurants, bars, cafeterias, patisseries and supermarkets of their duty to make
preparation for the use of the sales register machines. A second public notice was issued
ordering all large taxpayers (with the exception of public institutions, banks, insurance
companies and public and freight transport companies) to purchase the machines and start
using them within one month of the notice. See Ministry of Revenues (in Amharic)
(unpublished); Addis Zemen, Amharic daily, Tir 16, 2000 E.C; Addis Zemen, Ginbot 30,
2001 E.C.
197. It is quite common to establish special dispute settlement schemes for taxation in
many countries; in the U.K., taxpayers can appeal to General Commissioners (a body of lay
persons assisted by a qualified clerk) or Special Commissioners (who are highly qualified
persons). The Commissioners in the U.K. are the equivalent of Ethiopian Tax Appeal
Commissions. A further appeal lies to High Court from the Commissioners but only on
questions law, just like in our case. See JOHN TILEY, REVENUE LAW 75 (5th ed. 2005);
GRAEME S. COOPER ET AL, COOPER, KREVER & VANN’S INCOME TAXATION, COMMENTARY
AND MATERIALS 891 (Thomson Legal & Regulatory Ltd., 2005) (under the Australian tax
system, a taxpayer dissatisfied with the results of the Commissioner’s (the equivalent of the
Tax Authority (ERCA) in Ethiopia) internal review has the right to proceed to the Federal
Court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal).
Committee.198 Members of the “Review Committee” are different from the

tax assessors or inspectors, and in that sense they enjoy a certain level of
autonomy and independence. But they are appointed by the head of the Tax
Authority (and are still part of the Tax Administration in a way).
The Review Committee has the power to receive applications of
taxpayers and reduce or waive penalties, interest, and taxes imposed by the
tax administration.199 The Committee is not constrained by procedural or
judicial niceties. At times, the Committee deals with several, even disparate
cases en masse if all the applicants in these cases request, say, waiver of
penalties.200 In the end, the Review Committee has the power to make
recommendations only. The head of the Tax Authority may accept the
recommendations of the Committee, in part or as a whole or may
completely reject it—but in a diplomatic sense, when the head of the Tax
Authority disagrees with its recommendations, s/he simply remands the case
to the Committee with observations for further review.201
Taxpayers dissatisfied with the recommendations of the Review
Committee or the decisions of tax authorities may appeal to the Tax Appeal
Commission (TAC), a tribunal set up within the executive branch under the
Ministry of Justice.202 Although the Commission is still within the executive
branch of government, the Tax Appeal Commission enjoys relative
autonomy and independence as it is organized outside the Tax
Administration. The members of the Commission are to be drawn from
“among persons having good reputation, acceptability, integrity, general and
professional knowledge, and from among persons who have not committed
any offense in connection with tax and tax.”203 The composition of the
198. See Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 104. There is another
review committee, organized along similar lines, for the purpose of settling “minor customs
regulations violations.” This Committee is established under the authorization of the
Customs Proclamation of 1997 (now replaced). Minor customs regulations are defined as
differences of not more than 10% between the customs declarations by taxpayers and the
findings of inspections by the customs officers. The ostensible rationale for the establishment
of the review committee was to save the time and the cost that would otherwise have been
spent in litigation in courts, but the directive fixes the administrative penalties that attach to
the minor customs regulations violations. See Customs of 1997, Article 8(2), Proclamation
No. 60 (Eth.) (now replaced by Proclamation No. 622/2009) and Ministry of Revenues,
Administrative Settlement of Customs Regulations Violations of 1998. Directive No. 37
(Eth.) (in Amharic) (unpublished).
199. See Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 105(1)(a).
200. In one case, the Committee reviewed a case involving 29 different complainants
and forwarded its opinion that the complainants be made to be pay 10% of the penalties
imposed on them. See A.S.G. Magdlinos ET AL. (unpublished).
201. See Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 105(2). The members
of the Review Committee have some directives to guide them on matters like waiver of
penalties. See Ministry of Revenues, FDRE, Waiver of Tax and Duty Administrative
Penalties Directive, No. 5/1996, in Amharic, unpublished.
202. Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 107.
203. Id. art. 114(1).
Commission is to reflect the interests of the major stakeholders in tax

administration—the government and taxpayers. Although the composition
of the Commission is to be determined by a directive to be issued by the
Ministry of Justice, no such directive has yet been issued.204 Nonetheless,
the composition of the Commission somehow reflects the diversity of the
stakeholders in tax administration: the members are drawn from the
Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Finance, the Ethiopian
Customs and Revenue Authority and the Ministry of Justice, the last
occupying the position of a chairperson in the Commission.205
Like the Review Committee, the members of Tax Appeal Commission
are not expected to adhere strictly to the niceties of judicial procedures—
after all, most of the members of the Commission are not necessarily
lawyers, although the stakeholders incline to sending members with legal
background to these kinds of tribunals. The Commission’s composition
from the stakeholders in tax administration is in large measure designed to
address disputes in ways that satisfy the interests and demands of the
various stakeholders, even if that sometimes means going off the beaten
path of judicial procedures. That is why the Commissioners in some
instances make up their own rules as they go along particularly in cases
where the law is silent.
In Ghion Industrial and Commercial PLC v. IRA,206 the Commissioners
were faced with the question, among others, of whether Ghion could deduct
the travel expenses incurred while its top management were travelling
abroad on trade promotions with the high officials of the Ethiopian
Government. IRA (the Inland Revenue Authority) rejected these expenses
on the ground that the documents presented to prove the expenses were not
reliable. The Commissioners accepted the contention of the IRA but
allowed a deduction of 25% of the expenses allegedly made by Ghion,
apparently exercising their power of equity. In Metebaber Hotel v. IRA,207
the Commissioners allowed a deduction of 75% of some costs like
transportation expenses and 50% of costs allegedly incurred for the repair of
the Hotel, once again exercising their power of equity.
It is difficult to assert with certainty what role the Tax Appeal
Commissioners play in the establishment of tax norms in Ethiopia. They are
204. Id. art. 114(2).

205. In the old days, the Commission had members of the business community
(represented from the Chambers of Commerce) in its ranks, but this was discontinued
recently; there are apparently plans to recall the Chambers to its membership. Interview with
Ato Dawit Teshome, Ministry of Justice (May 20, 2010). The old income tax laws required
members of the business community to be represented in the Commission; the 1961 Income
Tax Proclamation for example provides that ‘at least half of all members of each commission
shall be chosen from amongst merchants and persons carrying on professional occupations.’
Income Tax Proclamation of 1961, Article 50, proclamation No. 173 (Eth.) (repealed).
206. Tax Appeal Commission, File No. 368 (in Amharic) (unpublished).
207. Tax Appeal Commission, File No. 523 (in Amharic) (unpublished).
not bound to follow the dicta of their prior rulings, but because they deal
with issues of repetitive nature, it is hard to believe that they willfully
disregard their prior rulings. In fact, one who reads the decisions of the Tax
Appeal Commission cannot but conclude that the Commissioners repeat
their prior rulings in subsequent cases without acknowledging it.
Unfortunately, the decisions of the Tax Appeal Commission are not
published. Taxpayers cannot therefore know how the Commissioners will
react to certain factual situations.
An appeal from the decisions of the Tax Appeal Commission lies to the
High Court—the first opportunity the regular courts have to entertain tax
cases; even then, only when an error of law (rather than fact) is found in the
judgment of the Tax Appeal Commission.208 If the High Court finds that an
error of law is made in the judgment of the Commission, it points the error
out and remands the case to the Commission for review of the case based on
the error of law found.209 The High Court cannot go into the determination
of the merits of the case.
Determining questions of fact from questions of law has never been easy,
and it is not just in Ethiopia that these questions have defied clear
distinctions.210 There are no hard and fast rules for distinguishing questions
of fact from questions of law. There are many reported cases in Ethiopia
addressing this issue, albeit in an inconclusive manner.211
A second appeal lies from the judgment of the High Court to the
Supreme Court, which has the same power of finding errors of law in the
judgments of the lower tribunals and remanding the case for further
208. Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 112(1) (the cited sub-
article does not say “high court,” but the repealed tax laws specifically refer to the “high
court” from the practice of appealing to the high court has been derived.).
209. Id. art. 112(2).
210. In the U.K., the construction of documents or statutes is considered as a question
of law while the question of whether the document was signed on a certain date was held as a
question of fact; similarly the question of whether a trade is being carried on is a one of fact
but the question of the meaning of trade is one of law. In an apparent swipe at the difficulty
of distinguishing a question of law from a question of fact, Dickinson wrote memorably that
“matters of law” grow downwards into the roots of fact while matters of fact reached
upwards without a break into “matters of law.” JOHN DICKINSON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
AND THE SUPREMACY OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES (1927), quoted in TILEY, supra note 197,
at 76.
211. See e.g., Barnadoni Guiseppe v. Inland Revenue Department (High Ct., Addis
Ababa, 1965), 2 J. ETH. L. 334 (where the High Court quashed the decision of the TAC on
the ground that the Commission’s decision to impose a fine on a taxpayer was based on
allegations not made by either party to the appeal); Mulugeta Ayele v. Inland Revenue
Department (High Ct., Addis Ababa, 1965), 2 J. ETH. L. 340 (reversing the decision of the
TAC on the ground that the Commission increased tax assessment on its own motion in). But
see Mosvold (Ethiopia) Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Department (High Ct., Addis Ababa, 1967), 4
J. ETH. L. 104, in which the High Court held that the decision of the TAC that disallowed the
deduction of a sum, as being interest on an alleged loan, was a question of fact and therefore
not subject to review by the Court.
review.212 Those aggrieved with the decision of the Supreme Court (or for
that matter, the High Court) have one last opportunity to seek review if the
decisions of the Supreme Court or the High Court “contain fundamental
error of law.”213
In the pure civilian tradition of the role of courts, judicial interpretation is
not a source of binding law for other cases.214 But it may have persuasive
power, which is acknowledged by jurists.215 Modern Ethiopian legal system
subscribed to the civilian tradition of confining the role of courts to just
disposing of cases before them. The interpretation of laws by courts may be
persuasive at various levels, but because of the limited diffusion of judicial
interpretation among courts and the academia even the persuasive power of
judicial interpretation is limited in the best of times.
The role of courts in the creation of legal norms through interpretation
received a boost in 2005 when a law was passed conferring binding effect
upon the interpretation of law by the Cassation Division of the Federal
Supreme Court in a decision involving not less than five judges.216 The
interpretation binds both federal and regional courts at all levels except the
Cassation Division itself, which has apparently the power to reverse and
even contradict itself in subsequent decisions.217 Putting aside the various
controversies surrounding this power of the Cassation Division of the
Federal Supreme Court,218 there is little doubt that the 2005 law elevated the
decision of the Cassation Division from one that was limited to disposing of
cases before it to having a binding effect upon cases having similar factual
situations before lower courts.
The tax dispute settlement schemes all the way up to the Supreme Court
follow the narrow strip of disputes that arise from assessment of taxes, as if
all the disputes taxpayers may have with the tax administration arose from
assessment only. The language of tax laws has been unwittingly restrictive
in this regard. This has the unfortunate consequence of limiting the choice
212. Income Tax Proclamation No. 286, supra note 43, art. 112(3).
213. See Federal Courts Proclamation of 1996, Article 10, Proclamation No. 25,
Negarit Gazeta, Year 2, No. 13 (Eth.), available at
http://ethiopianlaw.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/7/6/5576668/proc_no._25-1996_federal_courts.
pdf (last visited Nov. 11, 2011).
214. See George Krzeczunowicz, Code and Custom in Ethiopia, 2 J. Eth. L. 434
(1965).
215. See M. PLANIOL & G. RIPERT, TREATISE ON THE CIVIL LAW (12th ed. 1939, La.
State Law Inst. trans., 1959); Vol. 1, No. 227, quoted in Krzeczunowicz, supra note 214, at
434.
216. See Federal Courts Proclamation Re-amendment of 2005, Article 2(1),
Proclamation No. 454, Negarit Gazeta, Year 11, No. 42 (Eth.), available at
http://ethiopianlaw.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/7/6/5576668/proc_no._454-2005_federal_courts
_proclamation_reamendment_.pdf (last visited Nov. 11, 2011).
217. Id.
218. See Muradu Abdo, Review of Decisions of State Courts Over State Matters by the
Federal Supreme Court, 1 MIZAN L. REV. 66ff (2007). See also Kalkidan Aberra, Precedent
in the Ethiopian Legal System, 2 ETH. J. L. EDUC. 1, 23ff (2009).
of taxpayers to challenging the actions of tax authorities only when the

actions have something to do with tax assessment.219 The jurisdiction of the
Review Committee is limited to reviewing requests by taxpayers to
compromise penalties, interest, and tax liabilities—which are all related to
assessments by the tax authorities. The jurisdiction of the Tax Appeal
Commission is also limited to reviewing appeals from the assessment of tax
by the Tax Administration or the decisions of the Review Committee. The
Courts are limited to reviewing these decisions for errors of law only.
From this restrictive channel of dispute settlement in taxation, we may be
inclined to conclude that all disputes in taxation have something to do with
tax assessments. Tax disputes are not confined to tax assessments. Some
disputes may have nothing to do whatever with tax assessments. Taxpayers
may wish to challenge the “legality” of tax directives. It may be that the
conventional tax dispute settlement channels are never meant to
accommodate disputes arising from the exercise of so many discretionary
powers by the tax authorities. Even in other tax systems, these rights to
challenge decisions of the tax authorities other than those related to tax
assessments are often clarified and stipulated in other laws, like
administrative and constitutional laws. We may take the U.K. and
Australian tax systems for illustration.
In the U.K., taxpayers may challenge the actions of tax authorities on
grounds of “illegality,” “procedural impropriety,” or “irrationality.”220 These
kinds of disputes follow the ordinary dispute settlement schemes for
administrative disputes.221 Under Australian legal system, the actions of the
tax authorities may be reviewed on grounds of “denial of natural justice,”
“failure to observe required procedures,” “lack of jurisdiction or authority,”
“an exercise of the power for improper purpose,” “the making of an error of
law,” “a decision based upon irrelevant consideration.”222 Taxpayers have
additional opportunities to challenge tax authorities before the office of the
ombudsperson.223
As far as the right to judicial review is concerned, it is not yet clear if
Ethiopian taxpayers can raise objections to, say, tax directives, and where
they can go to raise objections. To date, none of the innumerable tax
directives issued by the Ministry of Finance and ERCA have faced any
challenges on grounds of being ultra vires. However, a recent case before
Ethiopian courts, though not on tax directives, promises that Ethiopian
219. All cases that appear before courts have something to do with assessment; there
have never been cases challenging the other actions of the tax authorities. Interview with Ato
Mustafa Ahmed, Federal High Court, Tax Division (June 22, 2010).
220. See TILEY, supra note 197.
221. Id.
222. COOPER, supra note 197, at 895.
223. Id.
courts might be open to challenges to directives.224 It is also legally possible

to bring these kinds of challenges to the Ethiopian Office of Ombudsperson,
which has the authority, among others, “to supervise that administrative
directives . . . by executive organs . . . do not contravene the constitutional
rights of citizens and the law. . . .”225 However, the fact that no cases have
yet been filed in this regard shows how narrowly tax disputes are viewed in
Ethiopia.
CONCLUSION AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
With all its imperfections, there is a system underlying all of the taxes in
Ethiopia. This article has attempted to bring to light the patterns that
undergird the Ethiopian tax system, albeit through the prisms of tax systems
elsewhere. It was the modest aim of this article to go beyond the usual
suspects—tax proclamations and tax regulations- to understand how the
system works from top to bottom. In all candor, many aspects of the
Ethiopian tax system are yet to be worked out and some recent
developments promise that the system is working on some of its gaps.
Having said that, however, there is still a long way to go before we spell and
pronounce every word in the “Ethiopian tax system.” The attempt to look at
the system as a whole should not blind us to the major gaps of the Ethiopian
tax system. We can only mention here some of major gaps and problems of
the Ethiopian tax system.
The first problem is the accessibility of tax laws. This problem is not
limited to tax laws, of course, but because of the nature of taxes the problem
is more pronounced. The first problem of accessibility is the whole
organization of tax laws. The legislative field of taxes is so chaotic and
disorganized that it is difficult for an average taxpayer to have a clear idea
of her obligations under the various tax laws of Ethiopia. There are many
pieces of legislation for one tax type of tax alone. Amendments are made
piecemeal, and the tax administration has so far made no attempt to
organize these systematically and logically in order to make them accessible
and intelligible to taxpayers.
224. See National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE) v. Hibret Bank S.C., Ato Iyesuswork Zafu,
and Workshet Bekele Demissie, Federal Supreme Court, Cassation Division File No. 44226,
Tahsas 15, 2003 E.C., in Amharic, unpublished. In this case, the respondents challenged a
directive issued by the National Bank of Ethiopia as ultra vires, and the lower courts
concurred with their arguments, but the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court overruled
the decisions of the lower courts in the regard, holding that directives can override an earlier
Proclamation as long these directives are issued pursuant to the power given in a later
Proclamation.
225. See Institution of the Ombudsman Establishment of Ethiopia of 2000, Article
6(1), Proclamation No. 211, Negarit Gazeta, Year 6, No. 41.
The other problem on the subject of accessibility is that some of the laws
are not available in official publications. Although the law requires
publication of all laws of the Federal Government in the Federal Negarit
Gazeta, directives and other subsidiary legislations have stopped coming
through the Negarit Gazeta. In the old times, even appointments of public
officials and some other weighty notices were published in the Negarit
Gazeta. Nowadays, all we get from the Negarit Gazeta are Proclamations
and Regulations. A large body of rules issuing from different administrative
agencies is simply kept in the files of the respective agencies with the public
kept in the dark about the extent and content of these directives. To their
credit, the Ethiopian Tax Authorities have put most of the directives
online,226 but how many people know that these directives are available
online and how many in Ethiopia have access to the internet to be able to
access these directives? Since these are official documents, the proper place
for them is the official gazette for legal publications- Negarit Gazeta. The
least the Ethiopian Tax Administration can do for taxpayers is to publish
them in the Negarit Gazeta. Of course, it should do more than that. It should
provide a compendium of all tax legislations and regulations in force, with
updates on regular basis.
Another area of concern is the issue of delegation of taxing authority to
unrepresentative administrative agencies. There can be little question that
administrative agencies should have rule-making power. The only question
is whether administrative agencies should have wide discretion and be able
to determine whether one should pay tax or not, or by what rate one should
pay tax. Great historical battles (from the Magna Carta onwards) were
fought on this question of whether unrepresentative branches of government
can impose taxes or exercise the power of exemption. Blanket exemption
powers are often delegated to executive bodies with little restraint over how
these important powers are exercised in practice. These exemption powers
have far-reaching implications on the equitability of the tax system in
general and must not be seen lightly. Tax laws that delegate to the executive
the power to define the nature and the rate of taxes are even more of a
concern than those that grant the executive the power to grant tax
exemptions.
Tax directives (in all forms) have proliferated in recent times. The size of
directives is estimated to be three times thicker than the tax proclamations
and tax regulations. The subject matter of directives is as diverse as the
number of directives out there. We must recognize that directives affect the
lives of taxpayers as much as (if not more than) tax proclamations and
regulations. Their numbers and volumes are only going to increase as the
Ethiopian tax administration gains experience and resources. It is therefore
about time that we direct our attention to directives- the procedures, the
226. Information is available at ETHIOPIAN REVENUES AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITY,

www.erca.gov.et (last visited June 18, 2011).
issuing authorities, and the like. Except in some purely technical matters,
directives should be preceded by consultative forums and invite comments
from the taxpaying community and even think-tanks (if there are any in the
tax field) before they are written into law. Consultations overcome many a
rancor and create a tax compliance environment based on voluntary
compliance rather than compulsion.
The role of the Ethiopian Tax Administration in the area of facilitating
uniform interpretation of tax laws through such tools like advance rulings or
letters and manuals has been quite negligible. If anything, the Ethiopian Tax
Administration has been tentative, sometimes making forays into the field
and then ceasing these kinds of services to the taxpaying community. Much
of it is understandable, given the resource constraints of the Ethiopian Tax
Administration. Again as the authority gains in strength (as it should), it
should take advantage of these avenues of “tax awareness” and facilitate
“voluntary compliance” by taxpayers as its goal is or should be.
More importantly, the status of advance rulings and other subsidiary
legal documents should be clarified. How much can taxpayers really rely
upon the advance rulings of the Tax Authority in their future dealings? A
strong tradition of challenging the procedures and rules of the Tax Authority
has not taken root in Ethiopia, with the result that we do not know how
courts will view some trailblazing administrative developments, particularly
in the area of advance rulings.
The channels of tax dispute settlement seem to restrict the appeal process
to cases having something to do with assessment by the Tax Authority. This
has the tendency of discouraging taxpayers from challenging the actions of
the Tax Authority that are not in the nature of assessment. There is a
plethora of directives issuing from the Tax Authority in recent times. These
directives affect the rights and obligations of taxpayers in one way or
another. Taxpayers should be able to challenge these directives, their
legality and consistency with higher laws.
Almost all cases that appear before the Tax Appeal Commission and the
courts have been in reaction to assessment of tax and of penalties. It is
surmised that the tax laws may have been responsible for this state of
affairs. Even if a taxpayer contemplates challenging the other actions of the
Tax Authority, she would not know where to start and to go. A strong
tradition of judicial review of administrative directives, interpretations, and
actions has not developed in Ethiopia to give taxpayers the opportunity to
challenge the tax authorities on matters that have little to do with tax
assessments. Although this is not a matter of taxation per se, the need for
administrative law and procedure in order to challenge the various actions
of the tax authorities is probably more urgently felt in taxation than in any
other area of governmental action.

The Ethiopian Tax System - Excesses and Gaps PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ethiopian Tax System - Excesses and Gaps PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ethiopian Tax System - Excesses and Gaps PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ETHIOPIAN TAX SYSTEM: EXCESSES AND

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 328

–William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1, lines 100-101

∗ Lecturer, Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Law, LL.B (Addis Ababa

–From ‘Excess’ by Sebhat Gebre-Egziabher, in SEED and

In a moment of dismissive hubris, the Ethiopian tax system may be

1. Jacques Vanderlinden, Civil Law and Common Law Influences on the

3. Eshetu Chole, Towards a History of the Fiscal Policy of the Pre-Revolutionary

A. The Federal Arrangement in Ethiopia and Taxing Powers

The fundamental authority to tax is derived from the Constitution of

6. See The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995.

18. See 4 ANWAR SHAH, THE PRACTICE OF FISCAL FEDERALISM: COMPARATIVE

determine by a two-thirds majority vote on the exercise of powers of

21. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of 1995,

multiple jurisdictions: federal, regional state, and concurrent. In any case,

B. Constitutional Limits on Tax Powers

Apart from the limitations federalism imposes upon the powers of

1. The Principle of Tax Legality

The first limitation found in some constitutions is the principle of tax

The current Constitution of Ethiopia does not explicitly require that

2. A tax or any other financial charge may not be imposed by a

directives.42 This law clearly devolves broad discretionary powers of

Ministry of Finance to increase or reduce VAT registration threshold,45

45. See VAT Proclamation, supra note 24, art. 16(2).

recognized in Ethiopia. However, simply because tax delegations are

2. The Principles of Fidelity to Sources of Taxes and Procedural

Unlike the principle of tax legality, the principles of fidelity to sources of

52. Taxpayers may, of course, challenge the constitutionality of delegations

expressed in, Articles 96-98 of the Constitution? Can the Federal

Constitution that prevents either the Federal Government or the Regional

denial of procedural rights to some citizens but not to others,62 while in

It is quite common for federal structures and constitutions to impose the

62. See id. at 20.

intergovernmental immunity.69 At first the doctrine of intergovernmental

Another limitation closely associated with federal structures is the

73. See Dam, supra note 69, at 282-87.

5. Adverse Impact and Benefit Principles

circumstances.86 Should the Regional States be constrained by the federal

C. The Federal Tax Administration

For a long period of time, tax administration in Ethiopia was an

86. Council of Ministers Regulations on Investment Incentives and Investment Areas

Italian occupation (1941).88 Administrative units or departments within

oversee and coordinate the operations of three federal revenue agencies at

See Federal Government Revenues Board Establishment of 2005, Article 2(1)-(2),

accompanying of customs transit goods and vehicles.97 The technical

A. The Organization of Tax Laws in Ethiopia

A logical organization of laws, particularly of tax laws, is critical for the

113. Id. at 81.

B. The Sources of Tax law

1. Tax Proclamations and Regulations

Most substantive and procedural rules pertaining to taxation flow from

Tax directives do not get as much attention in academic writing and

sense that “legislative” directives may “create, modify or extinguish rights

and concepts mentioned in principal tax legislations. These directives define

legislative directives. Specific legislative directives aim at specific

the tax regulations. These types of directives are particularly prominent

government authorities.157 The result is that many taxpayers are unaware

authorities enabling the latter to make appropriate revisions and take

Advance rulings, or administrative rulings, have become important