A Comparative analysis of treaties signed by Uganda and other neighbouring countries, is used in this paper and this is combined with interviews conducted with government officials and private sector
tax advisers, to assess whether Uganda’s network of tax treaties is fit for purpose, and to recommend how it could be improved through the policy review. Uganda announced the temporary cessation of bilateral tax treaty negotiations in June 2014, and a review of its policy towards such treaties. The main effect of tax treaties is to divide up the ‘rights’ to tax cross-border investment between the state parties, which reduces the possibility that businesses will incur double taxation; in doing so, it places
significant curbs on the ability of capital-importing countries, such as Uganda, to tax foreign investors. Uganda’s review follows decisions by developing countries as diverse as Argentina,
Mongolia, Rwanda and Zambia to cancel or renegotiate some of their historical tax treaties. These countries, together with some independent commentators, international and non governmental
organisations, have questioned whether the benefits of tax treaties for developing countries outweigh their costs. In Uganda, as elsewhere, tax treaties have always
been surrounded by an investment promotion discourse in political debate, yet there is little convincing evidence that they have had a positive effect on investment flows into low-income countries. In contrast, there are some clear aspects of Uganda’s treaties, such as definitions
of ‘permanent establishment’ and rules concerning the taxation of capital gains, which cost Uganda significant revenue and are vulnerable to abusive tax planning.
