Analysing how Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances (NRTOR) arises in Zimbabwe, its tax treatment under section 31 and the Eighteenth Schedule of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06], and judicial interpretation, particularly the Air Zimbabwe Corporation & Others v ZIMRA 03‑HH‑096 decision. The discussion is strictly grounded in Zimbabwean tax legislation and case law.

---

Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances in Zimbabwe:

Arising, Legislative Framework and Judicial Interpretation

1. Introduction

Zimbabwe’s income tax system includes a range of specialised withholding and remittance‑based taxes aimed at protecting the domestic tax base from erosion through cross‑border transactions. One such tax is Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances (NRTOR), imposed under section 31 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06], read together with the Eighteenth Schedule.

Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances targets payments transferred outside Zimbabwe by non‑resident persons in respect of certain expenditure connected with Zimbabwean trading activities. The tax is designed to counteract the shifting of profits through offshore charges such as management fees, technical fees, administrative expenses, and consultancy costs incurred abroad but allocable to Zimbabwe operations.

This article examines:

• the legal basis for NRTOR;
• the circumstances in which the tax arises;
• its scope and tax treatment;
• compliance, penalties, and refunds; and
• judicial guidance from Zimbabwean courts.

---

2. Statutory Basis of Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances

2.1 Charging Provision: Section 31

Section 31 of the Income Tax Act creates the charging obligation:

“There shall be charged, levied and collected throughout Zimbabwe for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a non‑residents’ tax on remittances in accordance with the provisions of the Eighteenth Schedule at the rate of tax fixed from time to time in the Charging Act.”

The provision establishes that:

• NRTOR is a national tax;
• its administration and scope are governed entirely by the Eighteenth Schedule; and
• rates are determined externally by the Charging Act.

As with all Zimbabwean taxes, the principle of legality applies: NRTOR exists only to the extent authorised by statute.

 

---

3. Purpose and Policy Rationale

The principal objective of Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances is anti‑avoidance. It is aimed at preventing situations where:

• a non‑resident carries on business in Zimbabwe; and
• profits are reduced through external charges paid offshore for services allegedly rendered outside Zimbabwe.

The legislature recognised that such expenditure is often difficult for tax authorities to verify and can be used to artificially erode Zimbabwe‑source taxable income. NRTOR therefore ensures that allocable offshore expenditure bears a minimum tax cost before funds leave the country.

---

4. Key Definitions under the Eighteenth Schedule

4.1 Non‑Resident Person

A “non‑resident person” is defined as:

“a person or partnership which is not ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe, but does not include a licensed investor.”

Residence is determined at the date of remittance, not when the expense was incurred. This temporal rule prevents taxpayers from manipulating residence status retrospectively.

---

4.2 Meaning of Remittance

A “remittance” is broadly defined as:

“the transfer of any amount from Zimbabwe to another country.”

The definition focuses on movement of funds, not the legal form of payment, capturing electronic transfers, bank drafts, set‑offs, and other equivalent mechanisms.

---

4.3 Allocable Expenditure

Allocable expenditure includes:

“expenditure of a technical, managerial, administrative or consultative nature incurred outside Zimbabwe by a non‑resident person in connection with or allocable to the carrying on by him of any trade within Zimbabwe.”

This definition is central to the operation of NRTOR and limits the tax to service‑related expenditure, excluding payments such as dividends, interest, or capital transfers unless otherwise provided for under separate provisions.

---

5. How Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances Arises

5.1 Basic Charging Event

Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances arises when all three of the following conditions are present:

1. the payer is a non‑resident person;
2. the remittance relates to allocable expenditure; and
3. the amount is remitted from Zimbabwe to another country.

Once these conditions are satisfied, the tax becomes payable automatically by operation of law, without the need for any prior assessment by ZIMRA.

---

5.2 Connection with Zimbabwean Trade

A critical element is that the expenditure must be linked to a trade carried on in Zimbabwe. Purely foreign activities with no Zimbabwean nexus fall outside the scope of NRTOR.

The tax therefore applies typically in scenarios such as:

• foreign head offices charging management fees to Zimbabwean branches;
• regional offices charging administrative or technical support fees to Zimbabwe operations; and
• offshore consultants providing services to Zimbabwe projects.

---

5.3 Timing of Liability

The tax becomes due on the date of remittance, and payment must be made to the Commissioner within ten (10) days of that date, unless an extension is granted.

This tight payment window reflects the legislature’s intention to front‑load collection, ensuring that revenue is secured before funds leave Zimbabwe.

---

6. Taxpayer and Compliance Obligations

6.1 Person Liable to Pay

Unlike many withholding taxes, NRTOR is payable by the non‑resident person, not by a Zimbabwean payer acting as agent. This distinguishes it from:

• non‑resident shareholders’ tax; and
• non‑residents’ tax on fees.

The tax follows the source‑based connection with Zimbabwe, regardless of where the non‑resident is domiciled.

---

6.2 Returns to Be Furnished

Payment must be accompanied by a prescribed return, disclosing:

• the amount remitted;
• the nature of the allocable expenditure; and
• relevant transactional details.

Failure to submit the return constitutes non‑compliance and exposes the taxpayer to penalties.

---

7. Penalties and Interest

7.1 Penalty for Non‑Payment

Paragraph 4 of the Eighteenth Schedule imposes a severe penalty:

• 100% of the unpaid tax, effectively doubling the liability.

This punitive measure reflects the high risk of revenue loss inherent in cross‑border remittances.

---

7.2 Remission of Penalties

The Commissioner may waive the penalty if satisfied that non‑payment was not due to intent to evade tax. This introduces an element of administrative discretion, balancing enforcement with fairness.

---

7.3 Interest on Late Payment and Judicial Authority

The question whether ZIMRA may charge interest on unpaid tax and penalties was addressed in Air Zimbabwe Corporation & 10 Others v ZIMRA 03‑HH‑096. The High Court held that:

ZIMRA is entitled to charge interest only where such interest is expressly authorised by statute.

The case reaffirmed that:

• penalties and interest cannot be imposed by administrative practice alone; and
• tax authorities must remain within the strict wording of enabling legislation.

This decision underscores the constitutional principle of legality in taxation.

---

8. Refunds of Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances

Paragraph 5 provides for refunds where:

• tax has been paid in excess of the amount properly payable.

However:

• claims must be made within six years of payment; and
• the burden of proof rests with the taxpayer.

The refund mechanism ensures that while NRTOR is protective, it does not become confiscatory.

---

9. Distinction from Other Non‑Resident Taxes

Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances must be distinguished from:

• non‑residents’ tax on fees;
• non‑resident shareholders’ tax; and
• withholding tax on royalties or interest.

Its defining features are:

• focus on allocable service expenditure;
• liability on the non‑resident remitter; and
• trigger based on cross‑border fund transfer, not accrual.

---

10. Practical and Policy Implications

From a policy perspective, NRTOR serves as a protective fiscal instrument for a developing economy vulnerable to base erosion. However, its breadth requires careful administration to avoid:

• double taxation;
• conflict with double taxation agreements; and
• disincentives to foreign investment.

ZIMRA’s enforcement must therefore be guided by both statutory limits and judicial oversight.

---

11. Conclusion

Non‑Residents’ Tax on Remittances occupies a distinct and important place in Zimbabwe’s tax system. It arises when non‑resident persons remit allocable service‑related expenditure outside Zimbabwe in connection with local trading activities. Rooted in section 31 and the Eighteenth Schedule, the tax reflects a deliberate legislative strategy to safeguard the domestic tax base.

Zimbabwean courts, particularly in Air Zimbabwe Corporation v ZIMRA, have reinforced the principle that both liability and enforcement must remain firmly anchored in statute. As cross‑border transactions continue to expand, NRTOR will remain a critical—though carefully circumscribed—tool in Zimbabwe’s international tax framework.

---