MAURITIUS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sivakumaren (Robin) Mardemootoo, Natasha Behary Paray and Jeeshna (Kaajal) Radhakissoon, Dentons Mauritius LLP
recent cases to recover unpaid corporate tax directly from individual directors, including non-executive directors, by relying on the deeming provisions that classify certain individuals as “agents” of the com- pany. Cases including Tze Sek Sum DC v Director - General , MRA (2025 SCJ 217) and proceedings arising from Avago Technologies Trading Ltd v Director - General , MRA (ARC, July 2024) have engaged this question. The statutory definition of “agent” is broad and the question of how far liability may extend to individuals who hold office but play no active role in a company’s tax affairs remains relevant. The Supreme Court has not yet definitively resolved this particular issue, with several cases on this issue still at the case management stage; the emerging case law reflects a judicial system working through the ten- sion between robust tax enforcement and the basic corporate law principle that a company’s liabilities are its own. As Mauritius tries to establish itself as a serious and attractive international financial centre, businesses operating through Mauritian entities, and individuals who serve on boards of Mauritian compa- nies, should be alert to this developing area and take appropriate advice on risk management. Foreign tax credit A recent appellate judgment, UPL Corporation Ltd v The Revenue Tribunal and Another 2026 SCJ 161, has resolved a long-standing area of ambiguity in the computation of foreign tax credit (FTC) under Section 77 of the Income Tax Act and the Foreign Tax Credit Regulations – another matter of direct relevance to the global business sector. The question was whether, when using the “pooling method” under Regulation 6 (3)(a), a taxpayer may combine foreign tax that is actually proved with for- eign tax that is presumed under Regulation 8 (3), or whether they must rely on one or the other exclusively. The MRA’s position had been that the two could not be mixed; the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that the FTC Regulations permit the aggregation of proved and presumed foreign tax when the pooling method is elected. Regulation 6 (3) gives
taxpayers a choice of methodology but it does not create a further, separate choice between proved and presumed tax within that methodology. The Court also reiterated the settled principle that ambiguities in tax legislation must be resolved in favour of the taxpayer. This judgment overturns a restrictive administra- tive interpretation that had been adopted by the tax authorities and confirms a more flexible, taxpayer- friendly approach to FTC computation. For global business companies – particularly those relying on the deemed foreign tax credit mechanism – the ruling is likely to have practical implications for the review of existing FTC claims, tax rulings and administrative practice going forward. Maritime Law: Limitation Of Liability in the Case of Environmental Disasters The landmark Supreme Court judgment of Okiyo Mari- time Corp v The State of Mauritius and Others 2026 SCJ 86 has clarified the scope of ship-owners’ right to limit their liability under Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 2007, in proceedings arising from the grounding of the MV Wakashio , an incident that caused significant environmental damage to the Mau- ritian coastline in 2020. The Court’s ruling is clear in its effect: claims for oil pollution damage are expressly excluded from the lim- itation of liability regime by Section 195 (d) of the Act, and a ship-owner therefore cannot constitute a limita- tion fund under Section 204 in respect of such claims. The Court rejected arguments that international con- ventions – specifically the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC 1969) and the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC 1976) – supported a different result, reaffirming Mauritius’s dualist legal tradition: interna- tional treaties take effect in domestic law only to the extent that they have been incorporated by legislation. Importantly, the Court also held that the exclusion for “oil pollution damage” extends to pollution caused by bunker fuel as well as by cargo oil – an interpreta- tion that gives the provision its natural and purposive scope.
361 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook