The legislative framework governing taxation in the United Arab Emirates is subject to periodic revision to address evolving administrative requirements and ensure legal clarity. The foundational statute, Federal Decree-Law No. 28 of 2022 concerning Tax Procedures (published in Official Gazette Issue 737 on 10-10-2022, effective 01-03-2023), has been subsequently amended. The first amendment occurred via Federal Decree-Law No. 17 of 2024 (published in Issue 784 on 30-09-2024, effective 30-10-2024). Most recently, the statute was amended by Federal Decree-Law No. 17 of 2025 (published in Issue 809 on 14-10-2025). This analysis examines the substantive changes introduced by Federal Decree-Law No. 17 of 2025, which enters into force on 01-01-2026, in the context of established principles derived from the jurisprudence of the UAE Federal Supreme Court. 1. Temporal Application of the Amendments (Effective Date and Retroactivity) The application of these legislative amendments is governed by established principles regarding the temporal effect of legislation. The amendments introduced by Federal Decree-Law No. 17 of 2025 are effective from 01-01-2026. The Federal Supreme Court adheres strictly to the principle of the non-retroactivity of laws (مبدأ عدم رجعية القوانين). It is settled jurisprudence that a law applies only to situations arising after its publication and enforcement, and does not extend to legal positions established and finalized before its issuance (Federal Supreme Court No. 627/2023, Administrative-Tax). Concurrently, the Court recognizes the principle of the immediate and direct effect (الأثر الفوري المباشر) of new legislation. This principle dictates that new legislation governs all facts and effects occurring subsequent to its effective date. Furthermore, the immediate effect may extend to the ongoing consequences of situations that originated before the new law, in order to unify the legal treatment of similar positions. This is construed as an immediate application, not a retroactive one (Federal Supreme Court Nos. 1480/2022 and 1/2023, Administrative-Tax). Consequently, the amendments, being primarily procedural, will apply with immediate effect to procedures initiated on or after 01-01-2026. This includes the mechanisms for error correction (Article 10(5)) and the issuance of Guiding Decisions (Article 54 repeated). The application of the newly introduced statutes of limitation, particularly the definitive time bar for refund applications under Article (38), requires precise application of these principles. While procedural timelines generally apply immediately, the explicit extinguishment of the right to a refund (Article 38(6)) impacts substantive rights. The application of these new limitations to credit balances that arose prior to the effective date will be determined by the principles of non-retroactivity and immediate effect, particularly concerning rights pertaining to tax periods that concluded prior to 01-01-2026. Furthermore, jurisprudence distinguishes between administrative and criminal law concerning retroactivity. The Federal Supreme Court has held that administrative penalties are governed by administrative rules which apply with direct effect. They differ from criminal rules, which may apply retroactively if they are more favorable to the accused. Consequently, amendments to administrative penalties generally do not apply retroactively to violations that occurred prior to the amendment (Federal Supreme Court No. 1108/2021, Administrative-Tax; Federal Supreme Court No. 578/2022, Administrative-Tax). 2. The Formalization of Guidance and the Definition of Administrative Decisions A pivotal legislative development is the introduction of Article (54) repeated. This provision empowers the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) to issue “Guiding Decisions” (القرارات التوجيهية) concerning the application of the Tax Procedures Law and substantive Tax Laws to specific transactions. Crucially, the article stipulates that these decisions are binding on both the FTA and the taxpayer. This amendment must be analyzed against the backdrop of established administrative law principles regarding the justiciability of administrative acts. The Federal Supreme Court has consistently defined an administrative decision as an expression of the administration’s binding will, pursuant to its public authority, intended to create, modify, or abolish a legal position (Federal Supreme Court No. 25/2021, Administrative-Tax; Federal Supreme Court No. 772/2021, Administrative-Tax). Historically, jurisprudence has held that mere clarifications (التوضيحات), explanations, or interpretations issued by the FTA, including private clarifications issued to individual taxpayers, do not constitute administrative decisions capable of appeal. The rationale has been that such communications serve an interpretive (revealing) rather than a creative (constitutive) function regarding the law, and thus do not inherently alter a taxpayer’s legal status (Federal Supreme Court No. 206/2022, Administrative-Tax). The courts characterized these clarifications as preparatory procedures (Federal Supreme Court Nos. 79/2021 and 95/2021, Administrative-Tax). Consequently, taxpayers generally could not directly challenge an unfavorable clarification; they were required to proceed, potentially incur a liability (e.g., via an assessment or Voluntary Disclosure), and then dispute the resulting administrative decision. The introduction of Article (54) repeated legislatively alters this landscape by creating a specific category of formalized, binding guidance. By explicitly rendering “Guiding Decisions” binding ex lege (by operation of law), the legislature has conferred upon them the essential characteristic of an administrative act: the capacity to immediately affect the legal position of the addressed taxpayer. A communication formally issued as a “Guiding Decision” under Article (54) repeated, due to its statutorily mandated binding nature, may meet the criteria for an appealable administrative decision as defined by the Federal Supreme Court. This suggests that taxpayers may challenge such decisions directly, without awaiting a subsequent tax assessment, as the binding guidance itself establishes the requisite legal effect. It remains necessary, however, to distinguish between formalized “Guiding Decisions” and other, less formal clarifications which may continue to be governed by historical jurisprudence. 3. Statutes of Limitation: Refunds and Assessments The amendments introduce greater specificity to the temporal limitations governing both the taxpayer’s right to claim refunds and the FTA’s authority to audit, primarily through modifications to Article (38) and Article (46). A. Limitation Period for Tax Refunds (Article 38) Article (38) has been substantially revised to introduce explicit statutes of limitation for refund applications. The amended Article (38)(2) mandates that a request to recover any credit balance must be submitted within five years from the end of the relevant tax period. Article (38)(6) explicitly states that the right to claim the refund or credit balance is extinguished if the application is not submitted within these statutory timelines, subject

The introduction of the UAE Corporate Tax regime, effective from June 2023, has established a new and complex compliance landscape for businesses. With this landscape come novel legal questions regarding accountability. A critical issue is the extent to which an employer, having incurred penalties from the Federal Tax Authority (FTA), may successfully recover such losses from an employee whose duties included tax compliance. The Dubai Court of First Instance, in its judgment for Labour Case No. 309 of 2025, issued on 9 July 2025, provides significant judicial insight into this question. While the primary claim was a standard labour dispute, it was the employer’s counterclaim that raised this novel point of law. This article will provide a dispassionate analysis of the court’s findings on the counterclaim, focusing on the legal principles and evidentiary thresholds required to establish employee liability for corporate tax penalties. The Factual and Procedural Context The case was initiated by an employee (the “Plaintiff”) against his employer (the “Defendant”) seeking unpaid salary, end-of-service gratuity, payment in lieu of notice, arbitrary dismissal compensation, and other allowances. The dispute centered on the termination of the Plaintiff’s employment and his entitlement to various sums, including a disputed bonus allegedly promised. The Defendant responded by filing a counterclaim (al-da’wa al-mutaqabila), which is the focus of this analysis. The Defendant sought to hold the Plaintiff, who was employed in its accounts department, personally liable for a fine imposed by the tax authority. The judgment summarises the counterclaim as follows: “In the Counterclaim: … b- Obligating the Defendant-in-counterclaim to pay the Plaintiff-in-counterclaim the sum of AED 10,000, which is the fine it paid to the Federal Tax Authority due to the delay of the Defendant-in-counterclaim in registering for the corporate tax system within the timeframe. … [The Defendant] based its counterclaim on the fact that the Defendant-in-counterclaim had caused material damages to the Plaintiff-in-counterclaim, which is the fine it paid to the Federal Tax Authority…” The employer’s legal argument was, therefore, one of tortious liability (or a harmful act) under the UAE Civil Transactions Law. It contended that the employee’s specific failure, an omission to complete the corporate tax registration on time, was a wrongful act that directly caused the company to suffer a quantifiable financial loss, namely the AED 10,000 FTA penalty. The Court’s Legal Framework and Reasoning The Court of First Instance accepted the counterclaim in form but ultimately rejected it on the merits. The judgment provides a clear exposition of the legal test it applied, which was not derived from the Labour Law but from the foundational principles of civil liability for harmful acts. The Three Elements of Tortious Liability The court began its analysis by citing the established legal principle that liability for a harmful act requires the claimant (the employer, in this instance) to prove three essential elements: Fault (The Wrongful Act): An act or omission committed by the defendant (the employee) that constitutes a breach of a duty. This act can be intentional (censure) or negligent (negligence). Damage (The Loss): A demonstrable loss suffered by the claimant. Causation: A direct causal link between the fault and the damage. The judgment referenced the principles outlined in Article 282 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, noting that the burden of proof rests entirely on the claimant (the employer) to establish all three elements. A failure to substantiate any one of these pillars results in the collapse of the entire claim. Application of the Law to the Facts The court’s rejection of the employer’s counterclaim was absolute and based on a fundamental failure of evidence. The judgment identified two distinct and fatal flaws in the employer’s case. Failure to Prove Fault and Causation The court found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to link the employee’s specific actions (or omissions) to the penalty. The judgment states: “…the Defendant [the employer] did not provide any conclusive evidence that the reason for the imposition of the fine it is claiming was solely attributable to the Defendant-in-counterclaim [the employee]…” This finding is of paramount importance. The court’s use of the term “solely attributable” indicates that it was seeking a high standard of proof. It was not sufficient for the employer to simply state that the employee worked in the accounts department. The employer was required to demonstrate, with evidence, that: The specific duty of corporate tax registration was formally and clearly delegated to this employee. The employee’s failure to perform this duty was the direct and proximate cause of the penalty. Other factors, such as a lack of management oversight, unclear instructions, systemic failures, or the newness and complexity of the tax law, were not contributing or intervening causes. By finding that this evidence was absent, the court concluded that the “element of fault is negated.” Failure to Prove the Damage In addition to the failure to prove fault, the court noted a more fundamental evidentiary lapse. The employer failed to prove that it had actually suffered the loss it was claiming. The judgment states: “…as well as the fact that the Defendant [the employer] did not provide any evidence of the damages it incurred or that it had paid the fine it claims to have paid.” This demonstrates a primary failure to meet the burden of proof. To succeed, the employer would have been required to submit, at minimum, the official penalty assessment notice from the Federal Tax Authority and a corresponding proof of payment (such as a bank transfer or receipt). Without proving that a loss was actually incurred, the claim was unsubstantiated in fact, irrespective of the employee’s alleged fault. The court concluded its analysis of the counterclaim by stating: “The elements of liability thus collapse, and the counterclaim is rendered unfounded in fact and law, and the court rules to reject it…”  Analysis and Implications The decision in Case No. 309 of 2025 is a salient reminder of the precise legal and evidentiary standards required to pass liability for regulatory penalties from a corporation to an

In a definitive judgment that clarifies the boundaries of criminal liability for tax evasion, the Federal Supreme Court, in its session on 5 August 2025, has affirmed the acquittal of individuals accused of evading excise tax amounting to over fifteen million dirhams. The ruling, in Case No. 1570 of 2024, provides a robust analysis of the distinction between the mere possession of untaxed goods within a designated zone and the substantive offence of tax evasion. It reinforces the paramount importance of judicial conviction and the high threshold of proof required by the prosecution in criminal matters. The case was brought by the Public Prosecution following the discovery on 9 February 2022 of a substantial quantity of excise goods—specifically 1,787,120 units of one product and 32,820 kilograms of another—which did not bear the requisite digital tax stamps. The goods were found in the warehouse of a shipping company. The Prosecution’s case was straightforward: the possession of such goods within the territory of the State, without the tax having been paid, constituted a deliberate evasion of a tax that was legally due. After the defendants were acquitted by the Court of First Instance, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, the Public Prosecution elevated the matter to the nation’s highest court, arguing that the lower courts had erred in law and fact. At the heart of the final judgment lies a powerful restatement of a core tenet of criminal jurisprudence. The court began its reasoning by affirming the principle that, “The essence of criminal trials lies in the conviction of the trial judge, based on the evidence presented, regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused.” The judgment makes clear that a court cannot be compelled to adopt a particular piece of evidence. The law vests in the judge the full authority to weigh the probative value of the evidence and to found his judgment upon any proof or presumption with which he is satisfied. Most critically, the court reiterated that “it is sufficient in criminal trials for the judge to harbour doubt as to the soundness of the accusation in order to acquit.” This principle establishes not a mere technicality, but a formidable barrier that the prosecution’s evidence must overcome. Applying this principle to the facts, the Federal Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case to be fundamentally deficient. The judgment adopted the reasoning of the lower court, which had concluded that the evidence “was inadequate to reach the threshold of conviction, having been beset by frailty and weakness and enveloped in such doubt and suspicion that the court could not be satisfied by it.” The prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on the findings of a tax enforcement officer. This, in the court’s view, was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s decision turned on a crucial finding of fact regarding the location and purpose of the seized goods. It drew a sharp and legally significant distinction regarding the warehouse’s location in a “designated zone,” defined as a fenced area with security controls specifically intended to monitor the movement of excise goods. The judgment determined that the goods had not been released for consumption into the local market. Instead, they were being stored “for the purpose of transit, the clearance of their transactions, and their subsequent export out of the country.” This was consistent with the defendant’s unwavering denial and his explanation that his company was merely a shipping and logistics agent. The court noted that “it is legally established that excise goods which are to be exported are exempt from tax, provided they are not released for consumption.” As the goods were seized within a designated zone and destined for an overseas market, they were not yet subject to the excise tax. In dismissing the Public Prosecution’s appeal, the Federal Supreme Court delivered a judgment of significant clarity for businesses engaged in logistics and trade. It confirms that the physical location of goods is paramount. The presence of untaxed excise goods within the secure confines of a designated zone for the purpose of re-export does not, in itself, constitute the crime of tax evasion. The ruling stands as an authoritative statement that the heavy burden of proof in a criminal case remains squarely on the prosecution, and that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for evidence that removes all reasonable doubt.

For almost seven years UAE taxpayers and their advisers treated the lapse of the statutory time-frame given to a Tax Disputes Resolution Committee (TDRC) as a de-facto “no” and went straight to court. The Federal Supreme Court has now changed that position in Judgment No. 388/2024 issued on 14 May 2025. Judgment No. 388/2024 (14 May 2025) holds that: The TDRC is a quasi-judicial body whose work is governed by the Civil Procedures Law, not by the ordinary rules of administrative silence. The 20 + 60-working-day deadline in Decree-Law 28/2022 is purely regulatory; exceeding it does not amount to an implied rejection. A court may only review a written TDRC decision. Filing a case before that moment is “premature and without subject-matter”. In effect, the “implied-rejection” doctrine survives only at the administrative level (the Federal Tax Authority’s reconsideration stage). At the quasi-judicial committee level, silence no longer speaks. The legal architecture in brief Instrument Relevant articles Key deadlines Cabinet Decision 23/2018 (creating the TDRCs) Art. 6(1)–(2) Committee decides objections within 20 WD. Decree-Law 7/2017 (old Tax Procedures Law) Arts. 27–29 FTA must decide a reconsideration request in 20 WD. Silence ⇒ taxpayer may object to TDRC. Decree-Law 28/2022 (current Tax Procedures Law) Art. 31 TDRC decides objections in 20 WD, extendable 60 WD by the Exec. Regs. Cabinet Decision 74/2023 (Exec. Regs.) Art. 45 Confirms the additional 60 WD extension. The “old” approach: silence = refusal Courts had routinely applied classic principles of administrative law: Primary Ct 507/2019 – declared the FTA’s failure to rule on a reconsideration within 20 days an implicit refusal, giving the taxpayer standing before a TDRC. Primary Ct 180/2021 – extended the same logic upward: if a TDRC exceeded its own statutory period, silence equaled rejection. Supreme Ct 1245/2022 – characterized any unjustified administrative omission as a “negative administrative decision” subject to annulment. Because TDRCs were often viewed as administrative adjuncts to the FTA, litigants treated them the same way: once 20 (or 20 + 60) working days expired, they filed suit. Courts reinforced that view, a recent example was in Federal Supreme Court Judgment No. 1020/2023 (issued January 2024) where the taxpayer lodged an objection with the TDRC; when no ruling emerged, the taxpayer petitioned the Federal Primary Court directly. The case travelled through three tiers—Primary Court ➔ Appeals Court ➔ Federal Supreme Court—without a single court questioning the admissibility of the claim in the absence of a TDRC decision. All three courts examined the substantive merits, confirming that — at that time — judicial practice accepted TDRC silence as a de-facto rejection. Judgment 388/2024: the turn of the tide Quasi-judicial status reaffirmed The Supreme Court emphasized that a TDRC “exercises a form of judicial jurisdiction” and applies the Civil Procedures Law. Therefore procedural silence does not generate a decision—positive or negative. Only an express written decision can be challenged. Regulatory vs. mandatory deadlines Because the 20 + 60-day limit is “organizational”, the committee may validly extend its deliberations without sanction. The Court explicitly stated that the legislator attached no penalty to non-compliance. Premature actions dismissed The claimant in the case filed in court five weeks before the extended deadline expired; the suit was struck out as “filed before its proper time”. Judgment extract The reasoning of the Federal Supreme Court in Judgment 388/2024 was as follows: “It is established that an administrative committee vested with quasi-judicial authority exercises a form of judicial jurisdiction and applies the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. Accordingly, one must await its decision on the merits of the dispute, since that decision is the subject and basis of any subsequent challenge. When a statutory text is clear, explicit, and definitive as to its intent, no departure from it or interpretation contrary to its wording is permissible under the pretext of pursuing the purpose that inspired it; there is no room for interpretation where the text is unequivocal. Because the legislator has conferred jurisdiction on the court only upon the issuance of a decision by the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee, judicial review pertains to that decision alone, and the court may not go beyond it by examining grounds not contained in the committee’s ruling. Where the claimant’s submissions before the committee are identical to those later brought before the court of first instance, the claimant must wait, then promptly challenge the committee’s decision once issued. In the present case, the claimant challenged the respondent’s reassessment decision and filed an objection with the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee on 25 June 2024. The committee was entitled—after the initial 20-day period—to extend the objection’s review by 60 working days, ending on 22 October 2024, as stated by the claimant in his pleading. Yet he brought his action before the court of first instance on 20 September 2024, without awaiting the committee’s decision, which would have been subject to annulment proceedings. Consequently, his action was filed prematurely and was inadmissible. Nor is the matter altered by the committee’s statement of 15 November 2024 that the objection was still under consideration, for the committee may extend the period even after 80 working days have elapsed; that time limit is regulatory, and the legislator has prescribed no sanction for its breach. Moreover, the court’s review is confined to the committee’s decision; it is not competent to revisit the respondent’s underlying reassessment, as doing so would contravene the express statutory provisions cited above. The requirement that a decision be issued by the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee—a body with quasi-judicial competence—is a formal prerequisite that must be satisfied.” Practical consequences Issue Before 388/2024 After 388/2024 When can a taxpayer go to court? On day 21 (or day 81) if the TDRC had not ruled. Only after receiving a written TDRC decision. Risk of limitation periods Taxpayer controlled timing by filing early. Taxpayer must monitor issuance of the TDRC decision and file within 40 WD of notification (Art. 46, Exec. Regs.). Case-management strategy Encourage early escalation to avoid delay. Emphasise proactive engagement with the TDRC; consider follow-up

Introduction Throughout 2022 onwards, multiple judgments of the Abu Dhabi Cassation and Appeals Courts took the view that an ICC arbitration “seated” in Abu Dhabi but administered by the ICC office in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the ADGM Courts rather than the onshore Abu Dhabi Courts. The outcome generated significant debate over whether the mere presence of an ICC office in the ADGM could, by itself, shift supervisory jurisdiction away from the courts of onshore Abu Dhabi. In August 2024, the ADGM Court itself addressed whether an ICC arbitration might fall under its supervisory jurisdiction simply because it was administered by the ICC ADGM branch and some of the hearings took place in the ADGM, despite the parties having originally designated “Dubai” as the seat. The ADGM Court ultimately emphasized that party autonomy in specifying the seat prevailed over the physical location of the ICC office or any hearings. At the same time, two recent judgments of the Dubai Cassation Court—Case 460 of 2023 and Case 805 of 2022—clarified that, while courts should consider whether the agreement explicitly identifies the seat, the factual place of arbitration and the actual operations of the arbitral institution are equally important. Even though these Dubai cases involved the Emirates Sports Arbitration Center rather than the ICC, they reflect the principle that determining which local court has jurisdiction depends on where the institution in question functioned and conducted its proceedings, rather than on a nominal reference alone. The ADGM Court’s August 2024 Decision In A15 v B15, the claimant sought to have its ICC award recognized and enforced under section 61 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, arguing either that the ADGM was the seat or, alternatively, that the court could exercise enforcement jurisdiction by treating the award as foreign. The underlying subcontract had referred to the UAE as the place of arbitration, with the ICC Rules governing. Procedurally, the Terms of Reference specified “Dubai” as the legal seat, but the arbitration hearings had been held in the ADGM. The ADGM Court concluded that the parties’ explicit choice of “Dubai” as the seat should not be overridden simply because the ICC branch in the ADGM administered the arbitration. It considered the seat of arbitration a legal concept, determined above all by party autonomy and the relevant contractual documentation, rather than by the physical location where hearings happened or where the ICC had its local office. Accordingly, the court decided that, under section 60(1)(a), it did not have supervisory jurisdiction but still had authority to recognize and enforce the award under section 60(1)(c). The Abu Dhabi Courts’ Position In contrast, several onshore Abu Dhabi judgments—among them decisions numbered 101/2022, 87/2022, 81/2022, 57/2023, 53/2021, and 635/2022—adopted a starkly different stance when dealing with the ICC ADGM branch. These courts generally held that, where an arbitration agreement referred to Abu Dhabi and the ICC administered the proceedings through its ADGM office, the seat was effectively deemed the ADGM, with exclusive supervisory power vested in the ADGM Courts. Their reasoning often drew on Article 18 of Federal Law No. 6/2018 (the UAE Federal Arbitration Law), together with the principle that the ICC ADGM office was regarded as an “ADGM establishment.” The result was that if parties specified Abu Dhabi as the place of arbitration but employed the ICC’s local presence in the ADGM, the onshore Abu Dhabi courts would refuse jurisdiction and direct all challenges or annulment actions to the ADGM. Dubai Cassation Court Judgments In Dubai Cassation Court Cases 460 of 2023 and 805 of 2022, the court examined the extent to which it had jurisdiction over annulment applications involving the Emirates Sports Arbitration Center, whose headquarters are in Abu Dhabi but which has branches in other Emirates. The facts concerned whether the arbitration had been conducted in a recognized branch within Dubai, or whether it remained centralized in Abu Dhabi. In Case 460 of 2023, the court found that the arbitration had taken place at the Dubai branch and consequently assumed jurisdiction. In Case 805 of 2022, it concluded there was insufficient evidence that the place of arbitration was in Dubai; the arbitral proceedings were in Abu Dhabi, so the Dubai courts had no valid basis to intervene. These two cases illustrate that factual determination of where the center held its sessions or from which branch it operated can be decisive. The courts would not simply rely on a notional reference to “Dubai” or “Abu Dhabi” if that reference did not match the practical and administrative reality. Synthesis of Approaches The ADGM Court, in its August 2024 judgment, prioritized the written choice of seat in the parties’ agreement. It would not accept that simple administrative involvement by a branch office or the convenience of holding hearings in the ADGM could nullify a clear contractual arrangement specifying “Dubai.” In so doing, it adhered to the principle that party autonomy is paramount in defining the seat. Meanwhile, the onshore Abu Dhabi courts appear to consider that, wherever the ICC’s ADGM office administers an Abu Dhabi-related dispute, the matter is necessarily seated in the ADGM, thus excluding onshore Abu Dhabi jurisdiction. By contrast, the Dubai courts highlight the actual conduct of arbitration would bear weight: if the evidence shows the arbitration happened in Dubai, they assume jurisdiction; if it took place elsewhere, they decline jurisdiction. Although the various rulings do not center on the exact same arbitration centers or identical contractual wording, they underscore that practical facts and precise drafting can be as significant as textual references in determining the seat. Practical Implications These developments underscore the essential need for clarity. When drafting dispute-resolution clauses, parties should unambiguously specify the seat and the intended supervisory court, taking care to distinguish between references to Abu Dhabi onshore courts, the ADGM, the Dubai onshore courts, or the DIFC. Equally important is the reality of where the arbitration will be administered. If parties choose “Dubai” but rely on a center headquartered outside the Emirate,

In a matter concerning the application of Value Added Tax (VAT) to a long-running construction project that began before 1 January 2018 but concluded years later, the Dubai Court of Cassation issued a notable ruling (Judgment No. 685 of 2024) regarding how VAT should be calculated. The dispute centered on whether the contractor could collect VAT on portions of the work that were either completed or invoiced prior to the official effective date of the UAE’s VAT regime. Before reaching the Court of Cassation, the lawsuit originated in the Dubai Court of First Instance under Case No. 2154 of 2022 Commercial (Partial). In that lower court judgment dated 28 March 2023, the factual background shows that the claimant (contractor) entered into a three-party construction agreement in mid-2017 with (1) the landowner and (2) the consulting engineer, who was in charge of supervision. The primary court found that the contract covered the construction of a villa consisting of a ground floor, upper floor, and a service block. Originally, the project term was set at 13 months. However, work on the villa extended well beyond that schedule. According to the primary court’s findings, the final completion certificate was eventually issued on 12 June 2022: “…after five years and 12 days from the date of signing the contract between the parties, which was originally intended to last 13 months.” The contractor had alleged that it completed 76.34% of the works by the time the project stalled in 2018. It further claimed that it stopped construction because of the owner’s refusal to provide the required finishing materials, which the owner was contractually obliged to supply. By the time the dispute reached the courts, one key question involved the sum of AED 363,389 that the contractor demanded as payment, plus a requested declaration that a check held as security should be canceled. While the primary court eventually awarded the contractor AED 171,996.50 plus legal interest, the issue of VAT became pivotal upon reaching appellate review and, ultimately, the Court of Cassation. The contractor argued that VAT should apply broadly to the amounts claimed. However, the Court of Cassation partially disagreed, confining VAT only to portions of the supply that took place after VAT’s effective date (1 January 2018). In its judgment, the Court of Cassation directly addressed whether sums paid for work done before January 2018 could be subject to VAT. It explained: “…if a service is provided on a phased basis or in installments such that part of the supply occurred before the law’s effective date, then VAT at the rate of 5% applies only to the portion of the supply executed after 1 January 2018. The work completed and paid for beforehand remains outside the scope of the new law.” Referring to the contractor’s specific situation, the Court of Cassation noted that the contractor received certain payments in 2017, well in advance of the 1 January 2018 VAT start date. and that the owner had disbursed AED 807,000 to the contractor during that period. Thus, the Court reasoned: “It was established through the expert’s supplemental report that the respondent [the owner] paid an amount of 807,000 dirhams to the contractor in 2017, prior to the effective date of the VAT law. Therefore, no VAT is due in connection with this amount because the supply of those services was completed before 1 January 2018.” Consequently, the Court “partially quashed” the lower judgment regarding the contractor’s VAT entitlement. It revised the amount due to the contractor down to AED 128,801.49, specifically excluding any VAT on sums invoiced and paid before 2018. In the final dispositive clause, the Court stated: “We rule to amend the appealed judgment so that the sum due to the contractor shall be 128,801.49 dirhams, and the contractor is not entitled to VAT on the works paid for in 2017.” It is relevant to note that the case reached the Court of Cassation through a petition by the Dubai Public Prosecutor’s Office “in the interest of the law.” Once the highest court in Dubai rendered its decision, it clarified the treatment of VAT for a construction project that began prior to the introduction of the tax but was completed—and indeed extended—well after the tax took effect. The Court, however, only addressed the parties to the dispute, and its ruling does not establish direct obligations on the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) itself, as the FTA was not a party to the proceedings and the Cassation Court does not exercise jurisdiction over the FTA. From a factual standpoint, the primary court’s judgment documented how the villa construction started around mid-2017, that the contractor and the owner disagreed about responsibility for supplying finishing materials, and that work effectively concluded in June 2022 under the contractor’s name, even though the original timeframe was set at 13 months. The Court of First Instance awarded the contractor the principal sum but did not separate out pre-2018 VAT liabilities in its calculation. Only at the Court of Cassation stage was the VAT element clarified, leading to a partial reduction of the final amount payable. Outside the specifics of this ruling, there is a broader historical position concerning development projects that transition from the pre-VAT to the post-VAT period, especially regarding property transfers. The general authoritative position has been that if the legal ownership of a property is transferred to the buyer—or if the buyer takes possession of it—before 1 January 2018, then that supply is considered outside the scope of VAT. However, if ownership or possession transfers on or after 1 January 2018, the entire supply may be considered subject to VAT under Article 80(1) of the Decree-Law, regardless of whether payments were received before or after the law’s implementation. In such situations, Article 70(4) of the Executive Regulations, which deals with partially supplied goods or services before VAT took effect, would not apply to commercial units fully handed over after the effective date. Thus, a developer generally charges VAT on the entire value if the property is

Introduction In a significant development for taxpayers disputing Federal Tax Authority (FTA) decisions, the Federal Supreme Court issued Judgment No. 1322 of 2024 (Administrative) on January 8, 2025. While the law provides a structured procedure to challenge FTA rulings—such as filing for reconsideration, objecting to the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee (TDRC), and appealing before the competent federal courts—this judgment clarifies that taxpayers may also initiate a challenge in the context of enforcement proceedings. As a result, the door is open for taxpayers to dispute the subject matter of FTA decisions through a substantive enforcement dispute. Below, we discuss the background and key points of the judgment, citing verbatim translations of critical excerpts from the original ruling where relevant. 1. Background of the Case The dispute arose when a taxpayer (the Appellant) was subjected to an FTA enforcement action to collect allegedly unpaid Value Added Tax (VAT) and administrative penalties. The taxpayer claimed that the underlying debts did not, in fact, belong to its account. Faced with a decision from the FTA Director General—which, by operation of law, had the status of an “executory instrument” or “enforceable title”—the taxpayer contested its validity within the enforcement stage before the enforcement judge. Quote from the Judgment (translated): “If the person subject to tax fails to settle the tax due within the statutory time limits, the Federal Tax Authority notifies the person to pay; then the Director General issues a decision obligating the person to pay the tax due, and such Director General’s decision shall be regarded as an executory instrument for the purposes of enforcement by the enforcement judge.”(Judgment, ¶2 citing Article 40 of Federal Decree-Law No. 28 of 2022 on Tax Procedures) 2. Established Path for Challenging FTA Decisions Ordinarily, taxpayers disputing FTA assessments or decisions must follow a prescribed sequence: Reconsideration with the FTA; Objection before the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee (TDRC); Appeals to the competent federal courts (the Federal Court of First Instance, then the Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court). The statutory regime aims to ensure that all administrative avenues are exhausted before judicial review on the merits. However, the new judgment acknowledges a parallel route when the dispute is raised during enforcement. 3. Substantive Versus Provisional Enforcement Disputes A central issue in this judgment was whether the taxpayer’s challenge during enforcement was merely a “provisional enforcement dispute” (seeking a temporary measure without touching the underlying obligation) or a “substantive enforcement dispute” (contesting the validity of the debt itself). Quote from the Judgment (translated): “The intended temporary disputes in enforcement—over which the enforcement judge has exclusive urgent jurisdiction—are those in which a party seeks a provisional remedy that does not touch the substance of the right. However, a substantive dispute is one in which the objective is to resolve the underlying right and the nullity of the enforcement.”(Judgment, ¶4) The Court firmly held that if the taxpayer is disputing “the essence of the alleged tax debt,” the matter is a substantive enforcement dispute, which cannot be dismissed merely as a provisional request. 4. Court’s Reasoning: Re-Characterizing the Dispute The Supreme Court reproached the lower courts for classifying the taxpayer’s objection as a mere provisional enforcement dispute. Instead, the Court stressed that judges must look beyond the labels used by the parties and consider the real nature of the claim. Quote from the Judgment (translated): “It is established that the court of the merits is obliged to bestow the correct designation upon the action and to apply the correct legal characterization to it, unrestricted by the terms used by the litigants.”(Judgment, ¶3) Because the taxpayer was directly challenging the existence and correctness of the underlying tax debt (alleging clerical errors, unrelated import transactions, and mismatched amounts), the claim was undeniably substantive in nature. 5. Enforcement Orders as “Executory Instruments” but Not Final Judgments The key legal nuance is that a decision from the FTA Director General—which the law treats as an enforceable title—remains an administrative decision, not a final judicial determination. This distinction allows the taxpayer to contest the debt’s validity in an enforcement proceeding. Quote from the Judgment (translated): “Since the executory instrument in question is not a judgment but an administrative decision endowed by the legislator with the force of an enforceable title, it remains open for the debtor to raise a substantive enforcement dispute regarding the genuineness of the debt. An administrative decision does not enjoy the same conclusive presumption as a judicial ruling, and thus it may be rebutted.”(Judgment, ¶6) Thus, the taxpayer may demonstrate the inaccuracy or invalidity of the sums claimed, even after enforcement begins, so long as the challenge truly concerns the heart of the debt. 6. Court’s Criticism of the Lower Judgments The Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in refusing to entertain the taxpayer’s objections about wrongfully attributed import transactions and contradictory figures. Simply stating that Article 40 of the Tax Procedures Law designates the Director General’s decision as an enforceable title did not absolve the lower courts from examining the substance of the taxpayer’s defense. Quote from the Judgment (translated): “The contested judgment ignored what the appellant insisted upon—namely that its dispute is a substantive enforcement dispute aimed at demonstrating the non-liability for the claimed amounts—and ruled in favor of dismissing the enforcement objection under the pretext that the Director General’s decision has the status of an executory instrument. Such reasoning violates the law and deprives the appellant of the right to defend itself.”(Judgment, ¶7) The Supreme Court thus overturned (or “quashed”) the prior ruling and remanded the case for further examination. 7. Practical Implications: A New Gateway for Taxpayers This judgment underscores that taxpayers are not strictly confined to the official reconsideration or TDRC route when challenging disputed tax liabilities. Even if the FTA has already issued an enforceable decision, the taxpayer can still raise a substantive dispute at the enforcement stage, provided the taxpayer can present factual or legal grounds indicating the debt is incorrect. Substantive Enforcement Dispute: Taxpayers may argue they owe

In a recent ruling (UAE Federal Supreme Court 212/2023, Administrative Division), the court addressed a critical issue for taxpayers who find themselves in disputes with the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) but lack access to essential documents. In essence, the court recognized that, while the standard rule is that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, there are instances where this burden can shift onto the administrative body if that body alone holds the evidence needed to decide the case. In English, the respective part of the judgment translates to: “It is established that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, and that the administrative judiciary’s departure from this principle in certain situations and placing the burden of proof upon the administration occurs only when the documents necessary for ruling on the case are exclusively in the administration’s possession… Therefore, if a taxpayer challenges the legality of the contested decision on the grounds that it was based on an unsound premise, and the administrative authority fails to respond or produce evidence refuting this claim, the court may rule on the basis of a presumption that the taxpayer’s claim is correct in light of the administration’s negative stance.” This ruling carries important implications for taxpayers engaged in disputes with the FTA, especially when the documents or evidence that might prove their position are under the sole control of the authority. Ordinarily, an individual or a company that brings a challenge before the court bears the responsibility to prove their case. This general principle ensures that those seeking to overturn or modify an existing administrative decision must present compelling evidence demonstrating why the decision is flawed. However, as the court acknowledges, the rigid application of this principle can be unfair to the taxpayer in situations where the evidence they need is not publicly available or is kept exclusively by the FTA. By recognizing that the burden of proof can shift to the FTA, the Supreme Court judgment introduces an equitable balance. If a taxpayer alleges that a tax assessment or penalty was improperly calculated or imposed on an incorrect legal basis, they would typically need to present proof of those errors. Yet if the FTA alone holds the relevant records—perhaps internal calculations, documents exchanged with other agencies, or internal correspondence that could shed light on the assessment—the taxpayer is at a disadvantage. The court has effectively stated that in such circumstances, the FTA must either supply the evidence or accept the risk that the court will presume the taxpayer’s position to be correct. This mechanism prevents the authority from withholding documents that could clarify factual or legal questions. It also incentivizes administrative bodies to participate actively in litigation, rather than remaining silent and relying on the presumption that the taxpayer has the sole duty to prove every aspect of their case. When the FTA fails to submit the necessary documents or offers no substantive rebuttal to the taxpayer’s claims, the court may interpret that silence as an indication that the taxpayer’s assertions are true. For taxpayers, this ruling underscores the importance of highlighting to the court precisely what documents they believe the FTA possesses and why those documents matter. It is not enough merely to state that the taxpayer disagrees with the FTA’s calculations. The taxpayer must show that the vital pieces of evidence lie in the authority’s domain, making it impossible to provide them on their own. Once that hurdle is cleared, if the FTA does not meet its obligation to disclose or rebut, the taxpayer can benefit from the presumption that their allegations are correct. In conclusion, Federal Supreme Court decision 212/2023 provides a fairer framework for disputes involving tax assessments and penalties. It ensures that if the FTA alone holds decisive evidence, it cannot deprive taxpayers of the opportunity to prove their case by refusing to produce the necessary records. This development helps maintain a balance in tax litigation and affirms the judiciary’s commitment to equitable treatment when critical evidence is solely in the hands of the administration.

Navigating the landscape of tax disputes in the United Arab Emirates presents unique challenges for taxpayers and legal practitioners alike. Central to this environment is the “pay now, argue later” system, a framework that mandates taxpayers to settle disputed taxes before contesting decisions through legal channels. This approach has sparked considerable debate regarding its fairness and constitutional validity. Drawing on our extensive experience at Wasel & Wasel in over 300 tax dispute procedures, we delve into the intricacies of this system and explore the recent judgment by the UAE Federal Supreme Court that upholds its constitutionality. The “pay now, argue later” system operates on a straightforward principle: when a taxpayer challenges a decision by the Federal Tax Authority (FTA), they must first pay the full amount of the disputed taxes during the second step of the dispute process before the competent tax dispute resolution committee. If the taxpayer fails at the committee stage, they may escalate to the federal primary court. At this stage, the requirement shifts slightly; taxpayers must pay half the value of the penalties in dispute to grant the primary court jurisdiction. This system ensures that tax revenues are collected promptly while providing a structured pathway for dispute resolution. We have observed firsthand the impact of this system on taxpayers. Clients frequently express reservations about the necessity of paying disputed taxes upfront. Concerns center around the financial burden imposed on individuals and businesses, particularly when the outcome of the dispute is uncertain. Taxpayers often question the equity of this requirement, fearing that it may disproportionately affect those with limited financial resources or those facing substantial penalties. The crux of the debate lies in whether this system aligns with the principles enshrined in the UAE Constitution, particularly regarding equality before the law and the right to access the judiciary without undue hindrances. These concerns were addressed in a landmark judgment by the UAE Federal Supreme Court in case number 928/2023 AD, which examined the constitutionality of the “pay now, argue later” approach. In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle of equality before the law as a cornerstone of the UAE Constitution. The court stated: “The Constitution of the United Arab Emirates ensures the principle of equality before the law and guarantees its application to all citizens as the foundation of justice and freedom. It recognizes that the aim pursued is primarily the rights and freedoms of citizens in the face of discriminatory phenomena that undermine or restrict their practice. The emergence of discrimination is based on origin, gender, language, religion, or creed and is not limited exclusively. The Constitution also guarantees the right to litigation for all people.” This declaration underscores that the “pay now, argue later” system does not infringe upon the constitutional mandate of equality. Instead, it operates within the framework designed to balance the social function of taxation with the protection of property rights. The court recognized that while taxation is a legitimate exercise of state authority, it must be regulated in a manner that considers the social utility of taxes and the necessity of maintaining public services and infrastructure. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the right to access the judiciary, a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. The court affirmed: “It also guaranteed the empowerment of every litigant to access the judiciary easily without being burdened by financial obligations or procedural obstacles. This access means that every individual has the right to resort to the judiciary, whose doors are not closed to anyone seeking to benefit from them. The path to it is paved by law.” While acknowledging the importance of this right, the court also recognized the state’s legitimate interest in ensuring the efficient collection of taxes. By requiring taxpayers to pay disputed amounts before challenging decisions, the system aims to prevent the undue accumulation of tax liabilities and ensure the steady flow of revenue necessary for public services. The Supreme Court further elaborated on the legislative authority over taxation, highlighting that the legislative branch holds the primary responsibility for determining tax laws, including their application and assessment. The court stated: “The legislative authority is the one that holds the reins of public taxation, as it undertakes to regulate its conditions through laws issued by it, designed to determine its scope and assessment principles, specify its amount, and oblige its performance. It also establishes the rules for its calculation, analysis, and collection, as well as the procedures for its payment, the statute of limitations, and what appeals can be made against it, encompassing everything related to the tax and its collection framework.” This clarification asserts that the legislature is empowered to set the framework within which tax disputes are resolved, provided that these regulations do not infringe upon constitutional rights. In this context, the “pay now, argue later” system was deemed a lawful exercise of legislative authority, designed to uphold the Constitution’s mandates while facilitating effective tax administration. Moreover, the court underscored the importance of procedural fairness within the system. The judgment noted: “Cases of non-acceptance of submissions or appeals as stated above are merely legislative regulations. They fall within the discretionary authority of the body regarding methods of tax collection, submitting them to the established authority for collection, and appealing them before the judiciary. They do not infringe upon the principle of equality and equal opportunities granted by Articles (14) and (25) of the Constitution.” This indicates that while the system requires upfront payment, it also provides structured avenues for taxpayers to contest decisions, thereby ensuring that their legal rights are preserved. The requirement to pay half the penalties before escalating to the federal primary court serves as a compromise, balancing the need for revenue collection with the taxpayer’s ability to challenge assessments without bearing the full financial burden initially. Given that the requirement to pay taxes arises at the tax dispute resolution committee stage, it is imperative for taxpayers to engage expert tax dispute counsel early on during audits, voluntary disclosures, or reconsideration requests to address liabilities before they

In a monumental decision, the Dubai Court of Cassation has issued a groundbreaking judgment in Case No. 756/2024, reshaping the arbitration landscape in the country. This judgment confirms that arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules have the authority to award legal fees to parties, even if not explicitly stated in the arbitration agreement. This marks a significant departure from previous rulings that limited such recoverability. At Wasel & Wasel, we had the honor of representing the successful party in this landmark case. We presented arguments emphasizing that Article 38(1) of the ICC Rules inherently empowers arbitral tribunals to award legal fees, as they form an integral part of the costs incurred by parties during arbitration. We referenced authoritative sources and interpretations by the ICC, which clarify that arbitration costs include not only the fees and expenses of the arbitrators and administrative expenses but also the legal fees and expenses of the parties. Reversing Previous Limitations Historically, the courts in Dubai held a narrow view on the recoverability of legal fees in arbitration. In prior cases over the years, the Dubai courts had determined that unless the arbitration agreement or the arbitration rules explicitly granted the tribunal the power to award legal fees, such costs could not be recovered. This interpretation posed challenges for parties seeking to fully recover their arbitration expenses. The Court’s Reasoning In this recent judgment, the court examined Article 38(1) of the ICC Rules, which states: “The costs of the arbitration shall include the fees and expenses of the arbitrators and the ICC administrative expenses fixed by the Court, in accordance with the scale in force at the time of the commencement of the arbitration, as well as the fees and expenses of any experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal and the reasonable legal and other costs incurred by the parties for the arbitration.” The court emphasized that when the wording of a legal provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be applied as written without resorting to interpretation that alters its meaning. The use of the word “include” indicates that the list of costs is not exhaustive, thereby encompassing legal fees incurred by the parties. The court further noted that the phrase “and other reasonable costs incurred by the parties for the arbitration” is broad and unrestricted, covering various costs without limitation. This interpretation aligns with common practices in international arbitration, recognizing that legal fees are a significant component of the costs parties incur. The court reasoned as follows [translated]: “And the legal costs, which include lawyers’ fees paid by the parties to the legal representatives who represent them in arbitration proceedings, are considered reasonable costs incurred by the parties in arbitration. Therefore, they are deemed arbitration expenses that are estimated and awarded by the arbitral tribunal according to the text of the first paragraph of Article 38 of the aforementioned rules. This is not altered by the argument that the absence of an explicit mention of legal representatives’ fees—as is explicitly stated in the first paragraph of Article 36 of the 2022 Rules of Arbitration of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre—would mean they are not considered arbitration expenses. This is because such an absence does not imply that the drafter of the ICC Rules intended to exclude the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to award lawyers’ fees after including the phrase ‘and other reasonable expenses incurred by the parties in arbitration,’ which encompasses all reasonable costs incurred by the parties, including legal costs like lawyers’ fees. Furthermore, asserting otherwise contradicts the consistent practice of the ICC Rules, where Article 37(1) of its rules effective since 2012 includes the phrase ‘reasonable legal costs and other expenses incurred by the parties in arbitration.’ According to the ICC Guide, which provides commentary on these rules, the arbitral tribunal considers the following categories of recoverable costs: (a) fees and expenses of the parties’ lawyers. This same text appears in Article 38(1) of its rules effective since 2017. Moreover, international arbitration practices applying these rules have established that lawyers’ fees are included among the reasonable costs incurred by the parties in arbitration, which are estimated and awarded by the arbitral tribunal.” Implications for Arbitration in Dubai This judgment has practical implications for arbitration proceedings in Dubai. The court’s decision brings Dubai’s arbitration practices closer to international standards, which commonly allow for the recovery of legal fees as part of arbitration costs. This alignment enhances the jurisdiction’s appeal to parties seeking arbitration consistent with global practices. Parties can now approach arbitration in Dubai with increased confidence that they can recover reasonable legal fees, which may influence their decision to arbitrate disputes in this jurisdiction. This greater certainty reduces the financial risk associated with arbitration and ensures that parties are more likely to be fully compensated for their legal expenses if successful. Moreover, arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules now have clear authority to award legal costs. This clarification contributes to more predictable and fair outcomes in arbitration proceedings, as tribunals can ensure that successful parties are not unduly burdened by their legal expenses. Our involvement in this case reflects our commitment to contributing to the development of arbitration law in the region. By advocating for a practical interpretation of the ICC Rules that recognizes the full scope of recoverable costs, we aim to support efficient and equitable dispute resolution processes. We believe that this decision will positively impact parties considering arbitration in Dubai, offering a clearer understanding of the potential costs and recoveries involved. Conclusion The Dubai Court of Cassation’s judgment in Case No. 756/2024 provides important clarification on the recoverability of legal fees under the ICC Rules. By affirming that legal fees are included in the costs of arbitration, the court has enhanced the predictability and fairness of arbitration proceedings in Dubai. At Wasel & Wasel, we are pleased to have led litigation to this outcome. Our focus on practical solutions and thorough legal analysis was instrumental in achieving a result that benefits not only our client but also

The recent judgment by the UAE Federal Supreme Court in Case No. 629 of 2024 marks a significant advancement in the interpretation of value-added tax (VAT) laws concerning employee benefits. This ruling provides critical guidance on how companies should handle VAT related to housing expenses provided to employees. In this case, a company sought to recover input VAT incurred on expenses for providing housing to its employees, accommodating job candidates, and offering hotel stays during marketing campaigns. The company argued that these expenses should be exempt from VAT and that it was entitled to reclaim the input VAT paid. The Federal Supreme Court delved into whether expenses such as water, gas, and electricity fall within the concept of a housing allowance. According to the court, these utilities “are outside the concept of housing allowance that is considered a component of the salary as an in-kind benefit granted to the employee by the employment contract and fall within services that must be reclaimed in respect of VAT.” The court emphasized that unless these expenses are explicitly included in the employment contract, they cannot be deducted from the tax base. Furthermore, the court highlighted the necessity of precise documentation in employment contracts. Article 10 of Cabinet Decision No. 1 of 2022 stipulates that “the employment contract must contain… the agreed wage, including benefits and allowances.” This means that any in-kind benefits, such as housing allowances or utility payments, must be clearly defined in the contract to be considered for VAT exemption. The court found that the lower court had failed to verify whether these expenses were included in the employment contracts. “The judgment under appeal did not properly examine whether these expenses were included in the employment contract… It has violated the law and must be reversed,” the court stated. This oversight led to the reversal of the lower court’s decision and a remand for further examination. This ruling underscores the importance for companies operating in the UAE to structure their employment contracts. By clearly outlining all benefits and allowances, companies can ensure compliance with VAT regulations and avoid unexpected tax liabilities. For businesses, this judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the intricate relationship between employment law and tax obligations. Companies must be vigilant in documenting all aspects of employee compensation to optimize their tax positions and comply with the law. At Wasel & Wasel, we understand the challenges that companies face in this area. With our experience in over 300 tax procedures collectively valued at over USD 1 billion, we are well-equipped to assist businesses in navigating these complexities. Our team is dedicated to providing clear, practical advice to ensure that our clients remain compliant while maximizing their operational efficiency. The Federal Supreme Court’s decision represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of VAT laws related to employee benefits. It highlights the need for businesses to be proactive in reviewing and updating their employment contracts and tax strategies.

  In a recent decision by the Dubai Court of Appeal, Judgment No. 829 of 2023, the court identified the criminal conviction of a former employee who was found guilty of both embezzling funds and engaging in virtual asset service activities without obtaining the necessary license from the relevant regulatory authorities. This case serves as a critical reminder of the legal obligations that come with handling virtual assets and the severe consequences of failing to adhere to them. The court’s findings were rooted in the criminal judgment from an earlier case, Criminal Case No. 16363 of 2021, where it was established that: “the defendant was convicted of embezzling funds belonging to one of the plaintiff’s clients, [redacted], in addition to being convicted of engaging in virtual asset service provider activities without obtaining the necessary license from the relevant regulatory authorities.” The connection between the defendant’s embezzlement and his unlicensed activities in the virtual asset space cannot be understated. The court recognized that by operating without a license, the defendant not only breached regulatory requirements but also facilitated his illicit activities. Deductively, engaging in unregulated virtual asset services provided the defendant with opportunities to handle and misappropriate client funds, which ultimately led to his conviction. In Dubai, the regulation of virtual asset service providers is overseen by the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) for mainland activities and the Dubai International Financial Centre regulates operations in its respective jurisdiction which mandates that any entity offering services in Dubai related to virtual assets must obtain the appropriate licenses. These regulations are designed to protect investors, maintain the integrity of the financial system, and ensure that all transactions involving virtual assets are conducted transparently and lawfully. The defendant’s failure to obtain the necessary license from VARA or otherwise was not a minor oversight; it was a fundamental breach of the regulatory framework that governs virtual assets in Dubai. Operating without a license meant that the defendant’s activities were outside the purview of regulatory oversight, allowing him to engage in transactions that were both unmonitored and unregulated. This lack of oversight was seemingly connected to the crime of embezzlement of funds, as there were no regulatory checks in place to detect or prevent the misuse of client assets. The court’s decision underscores the serious consequences of engaging in virtual asset service activities without proper licensing. It highlights that unlicensed activity in this sector is not just a regulatory breach—it can also be a gateway to criminal behavior, such as the embezzlement of funds. The connection between unregulated virtual asset services and the illicit obtainment of funds in this case serves as a clear warning to others in the industry. In summary, the Dubai Court of Appeal’s ruling in Judgment No. 829 of 2023 / Criminal Case No. 16363 of 2021 strongly affirms the importance of regulatory compliance in the virtual asset sector. The case demonstrates that operating without a license is not only illegal but also potentially criminal, especially when it leads to misappropriation of client funds. As the virtual asset market continues to grow, the need for stringent regulatory oversight and compliance becomes ever more critical. This judgment serves as a reminder that the consequences of ignoring these regulations can be severe, leading to criminal convictions and significant legal repercussions

  In a significant evolution of the UAE judiciary’s approach to cryptocurrency, the Dubai Court of First Instance has made a landmark ruling in 2024, effectively recognizing the payment of salaries in cryptocurrency under employment contracts. This decision, rendered in case number 1739 of 2024 (Labour), represents a notable departure from a previous judgment by the same court in 2023, where a similar claim involving cryptocurrency was denied due to the employee’s failure to provide a precise valuation of the digital currency. Case Background and Summary The case arose when the plaintiff employee filed a lawsuit claiming unpaid wages, wrongful termination compensation, and other related employment benefits. The plaintiff’s employment contract stipulated a monthly salary in fiat currency and an additional 5,250 EcoWatt tokens, a form of cryptocurrency. The dispute centered on the defendant’s failure to pay the EcoWatt token portion of the salary for six months and the allegedly wrongful termination of the plaintiff’s employment. The court’s disposition is particularly noteworthy for its recognition and enforcement of cryptocurrency as a valid form of remuneration, despite the traditional payment norms that typically involve fiat currencies. The 2023 Judgment: A Cautious Approach In the 2023 case (Judgment No. 6947 of 2023), the court was faced with an employment dispute where part of the employee’s remuneration was supposed to be paid in EcoWatt tokens. The court acknowledged the inclusion of these tokens in the employment contract but ultimately refused to award the amount in EcoWatt tokens. The refusal was based on the employee’s failure to provide a clear method of calculating the value of the cryptocurrency in terms of its equivalent in fiat currency. The court’s reasoning reflected a more traditional view, requiring precise and tangible evidence of financial obligations, especially when dealing with unconventional forms of payment like digital currencies. The court’s ruling in 2023 emphasized: “It is established according to the Court of Cassation that determining the employment relationship, its start, duration, and the resulting effects falls under the authority of the trial court (Appeal No. 85 of 2005 Labour). Accordingly, it is evident to the court from the case documents and evidence that the employment relationship between the claimant and the respondent is governed by the fixed-term employment contract previously mentioned. Regarding the determination of the start date of the claimant’s employment and the monthly salary, the court relies on what the claimant stated, with the start date being [redacted], and the gross and basic salary being [redacted] AED, with the end of service date being [redacted] (according to the termination letter). As the claimant did not provide evidence of the value of the digital currency (EcoWatt tokens), the court disregards it, since the respondent did not provide opposing evidence or any defense, and therefore, the court concludes that the duration of the claimant’s service was [redacted] and that the gross and basic salary was [redacted] AED, and the court rules in the case accordingly.” This statement from the 2023 judgment reflected a cautious and traditional approach, where the court required concrete evidence of the digital currency’s value before it could enforce such a claim. The 2024 Judgment: Embracing Cryptocurrency In a remarkable turn, the Dubai Court demonstrated a more progressive stance in the 2024 judgment, where it again addressed an employment dispute involving remuneration in EcoWatt tokens. This time, the court ruled in favor of the employee, not only recognizing the validity of payment in cryptocurrency but also ordering the payment to be made in EcoWatt tokens rather than converting it into fiat currency. The court’s decision in 2024 was based on the principle that wages are a right of the employee for the work agreed upon. The court noted: “Regarding the request for the monthly salary for [redacted] days of [redacted], it is established according to Article 912 of the Civil Transactions Law that wages are a right of the worker against the employer in return for the agreed work, and the provisions of Article 22 of Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations and Article 16 of the Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022 concerning the Executive Regulations of this Decree-Law provide that the employer is obligated to determine the amount and type of wage in the employment contract, and if not, the court shall determine it. The employer must pay the wages to the workers on the due dates, either through the Wage Protection System (WPS) or any other approved systems, and it is the employer who is tasked with proving the payment of wages to the workers and providing evidence of that. As the respondent did not provide evidence of payment of the claimant’s salary for the claimed period, and since the documents were void of such evidence, the court orders the respondent to pay the claimant [redacted] AED in addition to [redacted] EcoWatt tokens. Regarding the claimant’s request for [redacted] AED for the delayed salaries over [redacted] months in EcoWatt tokens according to the contract, as the respondent did not provide evidence of payment of the due amount to the claimant for the claimed months in EcoWatt tokens, the court orders the respondent to pay the claimant the value of her wages in EcoWatt tokens amounting to [redacted] EcoWatt tokens.” This ruling marks a significant shift in the court’s approach, demonstrating a greater acceptance of cryptocurrency as a valid and enforceable means of remuneration. It underscores the importance of upholding contractual agreements as long as they are clear, agreed upon by both parties, and not in conflict with public policy or law. Legal Foundations and Implications The court’s reliance on Article 912 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law and the Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 in both the 2023 and 2024 judgments highlights the consistent application of legal principles regarding the determination and payment of wages. However, the interpretation of these provisions evolved between the two judgments, reflecting the broader acceptance and integration of digital currencies in the UAE’s legal and economic framework. Conclusion The Dubai

  In a recent judgment by the Abu Dhabi Cassation Court, the UAE judiciary has delivered a crucial ruling that has significant implications for taxpayers across the country, particularly concerning the longstanding controversies surrounding Value Added Tax (VAT) refunds. This decision, encapsulated in Judgment No. 648/2024 issued on August 8, 2024, addresses the recurring issue where the UAE Federal Tax Authority (FTA) has historically rejected VAT refund requests due to non-compliant supplier invoices. This ruling now opens the door for taxpayers to seek remedies from their suppliers, potentially reclaiming amounts that could run into millions of USD. Background and Legal Context The case at hand involved a dispute where a construction company issued a check to a supplier as a guarantee for VAT related to a construction project. The dispute arose when the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) rejected the taxpayer’s request for a VAT refund, citing the failure to provide the required documentation, specifically the VAT invoices issued by the supplier. Historically, the FTA has been stringent in its requirements for VAT refunds, particularly where input tax is concerned. Under Article 55 of the UAE VAT Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 8 of 2017), businesses are entitled to recover input tax (VAT paid on goods and services) provided they hold a valid tax invoice. However, non-compliance with the invoicing requirements as stipulated in Article 59 of the Executive Regulations has often led to the FTA rejecting refund requests, leaving taxpayers with significant unrecovered VAT amounts. In this case, the taxpayer had submitted a refund request to the FTA but was unable to provide compliant invoices within the prescribed time frame. As a result, the FTA denied the refund, which led the taxpayer to initiate legal proceedings to recover the amount from the supplier. The Court’s Disposition The Abu Dhabi Cassation Court’s ruling is pivotal in that it clarifies the legal recourse available to taxpayers when faced with such VAT refund rejections. The court upheld the principle that if a supplier issues a non-compliant tax invoice, and as a result, the taxpayer’s refund claim is rejected by the FTA, the taxpayer is entitled to reclaim the corresponding amount from the supplier. This decision reinforces the taxpayer’s right to not be left bearing the financial burden due to the supplier’s failure to comply with tax invoicing regulations. Key Aspects of the Judgment The court’s reasoning centered around the obligations of the supplier under the UAE VAT Law. The judgment emphasized that the issuance of a compliant tax invoice is a statutory requirement, and failure to comply can result in significant financial implications for the purchaser (taxpayer). The court noted that in this particular case, the supplier had failed to provide the necessary VAT invoices within the stipulated timeframe, directly leading to the FTA’s rejection of the refund request. Consequently, the court held that the taxpayer was entitled to recover the amount from the supplier. Moreover, the court underscored that the principle of equity demands that the financial burden resulting from non-compliance should not rest on the taxpayer. Instead, the supplier, who failed to fulfill their statutory obligations, should bear the consequences. This ruling marks a significant shift in how tax disputes, particularly those involving VAT refunds, are likely to be handled in the UAE going forward. It sets a clear precedent that suppliers can be held financially accountable for the consequences of their non-compliance, potentially deterring future lapses in fulfilling VAT-related obligations. Implications for Taxpayers and Suppliers For taxpayers, this judgment provides a much-needed remedy in situations where VAT refunds are denied due to non-compliant invoicing by suppliers. The ruling empowers taxpayers to seek redress directly from their suppliers, ensuring that they are not financially penalized for issues beyond their control. For suppliers, this decision serves as a stark reminder of the importance of complying with VAT invoicing requirements. The ruling effectively places the onus on suppliers to ensure that their invoices meet the standards set by the FTA. Failure to do so could result in substantial financial liabilities, as they may be required to compensate their clients for any lost VAT refunds. Conclusion The Abu Dhabi Cassation Court’s judgment in Case No. 648/2024 is a landmark ruling in tax law within the UAE. It reinforces the critical importance of compliance with VAT regulations and provides a clear legal avenue for taxpayers to recover amounts denied by the FTA due to non-compliant supplier invoices. Taxpayers and suppliers alike would do well to take heed of this judgment and its far-reaching implications.

  Introduction As the UAE courts increasingly face cases involving cryptocurrency transactions, it becomes essential to understand the legal complexities and the critical need for robust evidence. The Dubai Primary Court’s recent judgment in case number 1024 of 2024, issued on 21 May 2024, underscores this necessity. This article examines the importance of presenting acceptable evidence in cryptocurrency claims and highlights the personal guilt of directors and officers in cryptocurrency investment scenarios. Case Facts The claimant filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for a failed cryptocurrency investment. The claim demanded the defendant to pay USD 90,000,000 or its equivalent in AED 330,300,000, plus legal interest of 12% from the due date of 23 January 2023, until full payment, along with court fees and attorney fees. According to the lawsuit, the defendant persuaded the claimant to invest in bitcoin, promising extravagant returns if the bitcoin was transferred to the defendant’s wallet on the Binance platform. The claimant complied, making multiple transfers, and initially received weekly reports from the defendant. However, the defendant ceased providing these reports and refused to return the claimant’s cryptocurrency. A criminal case, numbered 12309/2023, resulted in a six-month prison sentence and a USD 10,000,000 fine for the defendant, along with deportation. This judgment was final, as confirmed by the Public Prosecution on 07 May 2024. The Importance of Evidence in Cryptocurrency Claims In cryptocurrency claims, presenting robust and acceptable evidence is crucial due to the opaque nature of cryptocurrency transactions. The court emphasized that the claimant must prove their claims with clear and convincing evidence, particularly given the digital and often non-transparent nature of cryptocurrencies. The claimant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed profits and lost potential earnings led to the dismissal of those claims. The claimant sought several forms of compensation: USD 10,000,000 as determined by the criminal judgment. USD 25,000,000 for profits allegedly earned by the defendant from 359 bitcoins. USD 35,000,000 for lost potential profits. USD 20,000,000 for material and moral damages. Additionally, on 22 April 2024, the claimant’s legal representative submitted an amended list of demands, highlighting that the value of bitcoin had increased since the initial transfers. The amended claims included: USD 53,661,779 for the principal amount and profits. USD 108,661,779 for the return of 809 bitcoins or their equivalent in USD, including lost profits and compensation for material and moral damages, with legal interest of 12% from 23 January 2023 until full payment. The court ruled in favor of the claimant for only USD 10,000,000 as previously determined in the criminal case and dismissed the additional claims due to insufficient evidence. The judgment states: “The claimant is required to prove their claims, and the court is not obligated to guide the parties on the necessities of their defense. The only evidence presented by the claimant for the profits and lost earnings was a screenshot from Google showing the bitcoin exchange rate, which the court deemed unreliable. The claimant did not submit expert or financial reports to substantiate their claims.” “The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed profits and lost potential earnings.” Consequently, the court dismissed the additional claims due to insufficient evidence. Personal Culpability of Directors and Officers The court’s decision also highlights the potential personal culpability of directors and officers in cryptocurrency investment scenarios. The defendant’s personal control over the claimant’s cryptocurrency investments led to their criminal conviction and civil liability. The court found that the Binance wallet used for the transactions was in the name of the director/officer, which directly implicated him in the misconduct. This case serves as a cautionary tale for cryptocurrency investment providers, illustrating how personal control of cryptocurrency by directors and officers can lead to significant legal consequences, including criminal convictions and substantial fines. The judgment specifies: “The criminal judgment, which convicted the defendant, established the foundational facts of the case, specifically that the claimant was the victim, and the defendant was the perpetrator. This binding judgment made it clear that the defendant’s actions were wrongful, thereby fulfilling the requirements for tortious liability: fault, damage, and causal relationship.” “The court held that the criminal judgment, which convicted the defendant, established the foundational facts of the case, specifically that the claimant was the victim, and the defendant was the perpetrator.” Takeaways The Dubai Primary Court’s judgment in case 1024 of 2024 underscores the critical importance of presenting robust evidence in cryptocurrency claims. Given the opaque nature of cryptocurrency transactions, claimants must ensure their evidence meets the stringent standards of proof required by the courts to secure a favorable judgment. Additionally, the case highlights the potential personal culpability of directors and officers in cryptocurrency investment scenarios, serving as a precedent for future cryptocurrency litigation in the UAE.

  The enforcement of tax payment orders issued by the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) in the UAE can often lead to court enforcement applications by the FTA to seize assets of delinquent taxpayers. The federal primary court in Abu Dhabi executes FTA applications to enforce tax debts. When a taxpayer challenges and stops tax enforcement the orders issued by the court are not necessarily judgments (with reasoning) but are merely court instructions to stay the execution. This article delves into a recent judgment that effectively halted and canceled the execution of an FTA tax payment order with detail underscoring the grounds and principles that guided the court’s reasoning. The judgment guides taxpayers facing tax enforcement or having tax debts or tax audits that may lead to enforcement. Context and Judicial Authority In tax enforcement cases, the execution judge is tasked with resolving disputes related to the validity and enforcement of the executive document (i.e., the instrument used for enforcement). As such, the judge can issue rulings and decisions on all temporary disputes related to enforcement, provided they are urgent. The executive document in tax enforcement is generally a decision issued by the Director-General of the FTA. Article 40/1/b of the Tax Procedures Law simplifies tax enforcement by deeming the Director-General’s decision on Tax Assessment and Administrative Penalties Assessment as an executory instrument. This means that formal judgments are not necessary for the enforcement of tax debts; the Director-General’s decision alone suffices. This provision allows the FTA to act swiftly to enforce the collection of taxes and/or tax penalties without requiring prior court judgments against the taxpayer that recognize the debt. Within approximately 2-4 weeks of the FTA applying to the federal primary court for execution, the FTA typically makes applications to seize the taxpayer’s assets, including vehicles, bank accounts, stocks and bonds, commercial and industrial licenses, and real estate. Furthermore, the FTA may request the federal courts to liaise with local courts, such as those in Dubai or Abu Dhabi, to support execution efforts with their local authorities (such as the Dubai Land Department). Case Background The taxpayer in this case objected to the enforcement based on the assertion that the executive document’s procedures were invalid since the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) could not evidence that the tax was due before it was registered for enforcement. Legislative Framework Tax laws are inherently public order statutes. The Tax Procedures Law, particularly Article 40, outlines the steps the FTA must take if a taxpayer fails to pay the due tax or penalties within the specified deadlines: The FTA must notify the taxpayer to pay the due tax and fines within 20 weekdays from the notification date. If the taxpayer fails to comply, the Director-General issues a decision obliging the taxpayer to pay the due tax and fines, notifying them within 5 weekdays from the decision’s date. The Director-General’s decision regarding tax assessment and penalties becomes an executive document for enforcement by the execution judge at the federal primary court in Abu Dhabi. Judicial Reasoning The court highlighted that the execution judge’s jurisdiction hinges on whether the executive document is valid and enforceable. The taxpayer’s objection was based on the argument that the FTA could not provide evidence that the tax amount was due. The court found that the FTA failed to substantiate the claim. The court’s analysis revealed that the tax enforcement registration was erroneous. There was no solid evidence presented by the FTA to demonstrate that the tax was due, which was a crucial requirement for the enforcement process. This gap in evidence indicated a defect in the enforcement procedure. The court reasoned as follows in staying the enforcement procedure: “It is also established that an objection to enforcement is a supplementary lawsuit that does not aim to change the content of the judgment and is not a means to appeal it. Rather, it is a complaint against its execution procedure and, therefore, cannot be based on claims of the judgment’s invalidity, nullity, or violation of the law except in cases where the judgment is inherently flawed, affecting its existence and essence. … The implication of this provision is that the legislator made the issuance of the Director-General’s decision by the authority contingent upon the failure to pay after notification. Based on the above review by the court and given that the objector disputes the same executive document subject to enforcement for the payment of the claimed amount, which is evident in the documents and uncontested by the opposing party, the request to cancel the enforcement procedures is justified. The documents show that the enforcement registration was made in error.” Conclusion The court concluded that the taxpayer’s request to cancel the enforcement procedures was justified. The evidence of the taxpayer substantiated that the enforcement application by the FTA was erroneously conducted due to the lack of evidence of the tax debt, thus halting and subsequently canceling the enforcement process. Evolving Judicial Approach A notable trend is the judiciary’s evolving approach to tax enforcement disputes. The federal primary court has shown greater diligence in reviewing challenges to tax enforcement cases, granting more relief in the enforcement of tax debts. Grounds for halting enforcement have included issues related to the finality of the demanded amount, defects in the executive document, and procedural errors in the application of the writ of execution. The number of tax enforcement cases has significantly increased, rising from about 80 in 2023 to 80 in just the first two months of 2024. This surge indicates an intensified focus by the FTA on ensuring tax compliance. Consequently, there is a growing need for taxpayers to have a deeper understanding of the enforcement process and the available solutions. Wasel & Wasel have been counsel on over 300 tax dispute procedures for collectively about USD 1 billion in tax disputes and have obtained precedent setting federal supreme court judgments and are actively engaged by taxpayers in challenging tax enforcement.

  The recent ruling in Case Number 11 of 2024 by the Dubai Court of Appeal, issued on 29 April 2024, sets a pivotal precedent regarding the requirement for the signature of a dissenting arbitrator. This judgment reinforces the principles outlined in the arbitration law, emphasizing the integrity and robustness of arbitration procedures even when not all arbitrators are in unanimous agreement. Background and Significance The crux of the appeal centered on the claim that the arbitration award was invalid because it was signed by only two of the three arbitrators, with the third arbitrator’s dissenting opinion neither included nor explained in the final document. The appellant argued that the absence of the dissenting opinion and the refusal to include it invalidated the arbitration award. However, the Court’s ruling provides crucial insights and clarifications about the arbitration process and the legal framework that supports it. The judgment leverages Article 54(6) of the new arbitration law, which allows for the correction of procedural errors based on the parties’ request, thereby reducing the grounds for nullifying an arbitration award. Key Legal Findings In its detailed judgment, the Court reiterated the principles enshrined in the arbitration law: Majority Rule in Arbitration: The judgment emphasized that as long as the arbitration award is issued by the majority of the arbitrators, it remains valid. The law specifically states: “The arbitration award is issued by a majority of the opinions if the arbitration panel is composed of more than one arbitrator. If the arbitrators’ opinions diverge such that a majority is not achieved, the president of the arbitration panel issues the award unless the parties agree otherwise.” Signature Requirement: The judgment clarified the requirements for the arbitrators’ signatures: “The arbitrators sign the award, and if any arbitrator refuses to sign, the reason for not signing must be mentioned. The award is valid if signed by the majority of the arbitrators.” Case Analysis In the specific case at hand, the arbitration panel consisted of three arbitrators. The award was signed by two arbitrators, Arbitrator A and Arbitrator B, while the third arbitrator, Arbitrator C, refused to sign due to his dissenting opinion. The appellant’s argument hinged on the claim that this dissent invalidated the award. However, the Court dismissed this claim, noting: “The failure to record the dissenting opinion of one arbitrator does not undermine the validity of the award signed by the majority. The arbitration award is valid as long as it adheres to the legal requirements and is signed by the majority of the arbitrators.” Furthermore, the Court underscored that the procedural framework established by the new arbitration law aims to prioritize the validity of procedural actions over potential grounds for nullification, as long as the fundamental objectives of the procedure are met. Practical Implications This ruling has significant implications for arbitration practices. It underscores that: The validity of arbitration awards hinges on the adherence to procedural rules and the majority rule principle. Dissenting opinions, while important, do not invalidate an award if not included, provided the majority of arbitrators have signed the award. The arbitration law is designed to ensure procedural robustness and minimize the potential for nullification based on technicalities. The judgment provides a clear message that arbitration awards should be respected and upheld if they comply with the procedural requirements, even in the presence of dissenting opinions. This promotes the efficiency and reliability of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. Conclusion The Dubai Court of Appeal’s judgment in Case Number 11 of 2024 is a landmark decision that reinforces the principles of arbitration law, particularly concerning the requirement for the signature of dissenting arbitrators. By prioritizing procedural correctness and the majority rule, this ruling enhances the robustness of arbitration awards and minimizes unnecessary annulments based on technicalities. This precedent not only clarifies legal ambiguities but also strengthens the arbitration framework, ensuring that it remains a trusted and efficient method for resolving disputes. The judgment is a testament to the evolving nature of arbitration law and its alignment with international best practice.

  In recent years, the intricacies of liability among members of tax groups have become increasingly relevant in commercial dealings. Several judgments from the Dubai Courts provide profound insights into this subject, highlighting the nuanced interpretations and applications of the law. This article delves into three pivotal cases, underscoring the complexities of liability within tax groups and their implications for commercial transactions. Dubai Primary Court Judgment No. 95 of 2021: Individual Liability Within a Tax Group This case revolves around a contractual dispute involving Company A (Free Zone) and another company within the same tax group. The court noted, “It is legally established that a contractor agreement is a contract whereby one party undertakes to perform a task or make something in return for compensation agreed upon by the other party” (Article 872 of the Civil Transactions Law). The judgment highlighted that the client is obligated to pay the compensation upon delivery of the agreed-upon work unless otherwise stipulated by agreement or custom (Article 885). In this case, the court emphasized the burden of proof, stating, “The claimant must prove their right, and the defendant must refute it” (Article 1 of the Evidence Law). The judgment further clarified that commercial account statements maintained by a trader in their commercial books hold evidentiary weight, placing the burden of disproving the entries on the defendant. This is particularly significant in the context of tax groups, where intercompany transactions and their documentation can be contentious. Despite their tax group affiliation, the court found that the second defendant was individually liable for the amount owed based on the specific contractual obligations and performance of services by the plaintiff. The court upheld the claim against the defendant, asserting, “The second defendant, a sister company within the same tax group, failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, resulting in a liability of AED 99,855.” Dubai Primary Court Judgment No. 2702 of 2020: Separate Legal Personalities in Tax Groups This case delves deeper into the concept of tax group liability. It involved Company B, part of the same tax group as Company C. The dispute centered on purchase orders issued by Company C, directing invoices to be made out to Company B. However, the court found no evidence that Company B had received or acknowledged the goods or issued any orders to the claimant. The judgment stated, “The relationship of the defendant to the contract in question is limited to the fact that the purchase orders directed the invoices to be issued in its name.” The court concluded that being part of the same tax group does not automatically transfer liability between companies. Each company retains its separate legal personality. Since Company B had an independent legal personality from the company issuing the purchase orders, it could not be held liable for the claim, underscoring the distinct legal identities within a tax group. Dubai Primary Court  Judgment No. 7794 of 2019: Unified Obligations Due to Intercompany Dependency This case addressed the broader implications of VAT laws on tax groups and examined the relationship between the companies within a tax group. The court explained, “Value Added Tax (VAT) is imposed on the import and supply of goods and services at each stage of production and distribution.” It further clarified that a tax group comprises two or more entities registered as a single taxable entity with the Federal Tax Authority, sharing economic, financial, and organizational ties. The court took a different position in this case because it looked into the intercompany dependency between the tax group members. The judgment elaborated on the intercompany relationships, noting, “The tax group is treated as a single taxable person for VAT purposes, and all members are jointly and severally liable for the group’s VAT obligations.” In this case, the court found that the companies within the tax group were not financially or organizationally separate, stating, “The tax group members are united in their obligations, and the group’s restructuring decisions and financial statements reflected their collective responsibility.” Consequently, the court held the tax group members jointly liable for the VAT liabilities. These judgments collectively underscore the critical importance of understanding the legal and financial relationships within tax groups in commercial dealings. They highlight that while tax group members may operate as separate legal entities, their collective obligations and responsibilities, especially concerning VAT, can blur these distinctions. This has significant implications for businesses operating within such structures, emphasizing the need for meticulous documentation and clear contractual terms to navigate the complexities of liability. Moreover, these cases illustrate the courts’ approach to interpreting contractual obligations and the evidentiary requirements in commercial disputes involving tax groups. The emphasis on the burden of proof, the evidentiary weight of commercial records, and the distinct legal personalities within tax groups provides a comprehensive framework for understanding liability in these contexts. In conclusion, the liability of tax group members in commercial dealings is a multifaceted issue that requires careful legal and financial consideration. The insights from the Dubai Court judgments provide valuable guidance for businesses and tax practitioners navigating these complexities. Understanding the interplay between contractual obligations, tax laws, and the collective responsibilities of tax group members is crucial for mitigating risks and ensuring compliance in commercial transactions.

  The ruling No. 229 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi on 04 April 2024 sets a new precedent regarding the necessity for taxpayers to provide tax invoices to claim tax debts from debtors. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to formal documentation requirements in tax matters, ensuring that taxpayers have the appropriate records to support their claims. In this case, the court emphasized that understanding the facts of the case and evaluating the evidence, including expert reports, is within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court has the authority to accept or reject expert reports wholly or partially, provided that its decision is based on reasonable grounds. The case involved a contract dispute where the contractor completed 86.50% of the contracted work. The appointed expert reviewed the work, identified deficiencies in workmanship, and deducted their value from the contractor’s dues. Additionally, the expert calculated the value of the extra work performed and settled the contractor’s entitlements based on the actual work completed. The court ruled that the contractor was entitled to AED 665,697 for the work executed, a sum supported by the expert report. One critical aspect of the ruling was the dismissal of the contractor’s claim for VAT reimbursement. The contractor presented an accounting document from the Federal Tax Authority’s system to support the VAT claim. However, the court found that this document was not a tax invoice, and there was no evidence of any tax invoice being submitted to the respondents for the amount claimed. According to the contract terms, the contractor needed to provide a valid tax invoice to be eligible for VAT reimbursement. The lack of proper tax invoices not only affects the ability to claim tax debts but also exposes taxpayers to potential penalties imposed by the Federal Tax Authority. The FTA has strict guidelines and regulations for VAT documentation, and failure to comply can result in significant fines and penalties. This ruling by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation prevents creditors from claiming taxes from debtors if they lack the appropriate tax invoices, expanding the plight of not issuing accurate tax invoices. This ruling reinforces the legal requirement for tax invoices to claim tax debts and ensures that such claims are substantiated by appropriate documentation. The court’s decision aligns with the principles of fairness and legal integrity, ensuring that claims are based on solid evidence rather than assumptions or incomplete documentation. Moreover, this judgment highlights the significance of maintaining accurate and comprehensive records in commercial transactions. For businesses, this serves as a reminder of the critical role of documentation in supporting their financial claims and legal rights. Ensuring that all transactions are properly documented with tax invoices not only complies with legal requirements but also protects businesses in potential disputes. In conclusion, the ruling No. 229 of 2024 by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation sets a clear precedent that taxpayers must provide tax invoices to claim tax debts from debtors. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to formal documentation requirements and maintaining accurate records to support financial claims. For businesses and tax professionals, this serves as a crucial reminder of the need to ensure that all financial transactions are properly documented and supported by appropriate evidence. The ruling also highlights the potential consequences of failing to issue accurate tax invoices, which can include penalties from the Federal Tax Authority and the inability to claim taxes from debtors. This ruling will likely influence future cases, reinforcing the necessity for strict compliance with tax documentation regulations.

  First published on LexisNexis on 04 June 2024 at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/news/difc-court-of-appeal-affirms-enforceability-of-foreign-interim-arbitral-awards-neal-v-nadir Mini-summary In the case of Neal v Nadir [2024] DIFC A 001, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of foreign interim arbitral awards, reinforcing the DIFC’s commitment to arbitration and international legal standards. The court held that interim awards, which are not final, can still be recognized and enforced within the DIFC jurisdiction. This decision is significant for practitioners in international arbitration and commercial law, as it underscores the DIFC Courts’ supportive stance on arbitration and offers clarity on the enforceability of interim measures. What are the practical implications of this case? The practical implications of Neal v Nadir are far-reaching for practitioners in international arbitration and commercial law. By affirming the enforceability of foreign interim arbitral awards, the DIFC Court of Appeal enhances legal certainty and predictability for parties engaged in cross-border arbitration. This decision reassures international businesses that interim measures granted in arbitration proceedings abroad will be respected and enforced in the DIFC, thus bolstering the attractiveness of the DIFC as a hub for international dispute resolution. For arbitration practitioners, this ruling underscores the importance of obtaining interim measures in jurisdictions that are supportive of arbitration. The court stated, “Recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, irrespective of the State or jurisdiction in which it was made, may be refused by the DIFC Court only on the grounds specified in that Article,” reinforcing the robustness of the enforcement regime. Furthermore, the court noted, “few would regard it as desirable that awards of this kind should not be enforceable,” highlighting the modern view on interim relief. Commercial lawyers will also find this decision relevant when advising clients on the risks and benefits of interim relief in arbitration. The ruling provides a clearer understanding of the enforceability of interim awards, which can be crucial in maintaining the status quo or preventing harm during the pendency of arbitration proceedings. Overall, the decision enhances the credibility and effectiveness of the DIFC as a venue for enforcing arbitral awards, both interim and final, making it a pivotal case for practitioners involved in international arbitration and commercial disputes. What was the background? The dispute in Neal v Nadir originated from a contractual agreement between the parties, which included an arbitration clause stipulating that any disputes would be resolved through arbitration. During the arbitration proceedings, an interim award was issued by the arbitral tribunal in favor of Neal, granting certain provisional measures to preserve assets and maintain the status quo until the final award was rendered. Nadir challenged the enforceability of this interim award in the DIFC Courts, arguing that interim awards should not be enforceable as they are not final and binding decisions. Neal, on the other hand, contended that the interim award was essential for protecting his interests during the arbitration and sought the DIFC Courts’ assistance in enforcing it. The primary issue before the DIFC Court of Appeal was whether a foreign interim arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in the DIFC jurisdiction. The court had to consider the relevant legal principles and international conventions applicable to the enforcement of arbitral awards, particularly focusing on the New York Convention and the DIFC Arbitration Law. What did the court decide? The DIFC Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Neal, affirming the enforceability of foreign interim arbitral awards within the DIFC jurisdiction. The court held that the interim award, despite not being a final adjudication of the dispute, met the criteria for recognition and enforcement under the DIFC Arbitration Law and the New York Convention. The court emphasized, “An interim measure is any temporary measure, whether in the form of an award or in another form, made by the Arbitral Tribunal at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is to be finally decided.” The court emphasized that the purpose of interim measures in arbitration is to provide immediate relief and prevent irreparable harm, aligning with international arbitration principles. By recognizing and enforcing such awards, the DIFC Courts uphold the integrity and efficacy of the arbitral process. “The purpose of interim measures in arbitration is to provide immediate relief and prevent irreparable harm,” the court stated, highlighting the critical role of interim measures in arbitration proceedings. The decision was grounded in the interpretation of the DIFC Arbitration Law, which allows for the recognition and enforcement of interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal. The court also referenced international jurisprudence and academic commentary supporting the enforceability of interim awards to bolster its decision. This ruling sets a precedent for the DIFC Courts and reinforces the jurisdiction’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly forum. It clarifies that interim awards, which play a critical role in arbitration proceedings, can be effectively enforced in the DIFC, providing greater assurance to parties seeking interim relief in international arbitration. Case details Court: Court of Appeal, Dubai International Financial Centre Courts Judge: Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, and Justice Andrew Moran Date of judgment: 19/3/2024