March 2023 QPD’s Due Date.

Due date for 2023’s 1st Provisional Tax return (1st QPD).

The 2023 first Quarterly Payments Date (QPD) is the on the 25th of March 2023. Taxpayers are urged to submit their ITF12B return on or/ before the 25th of March 2023.

Remittance of 2023 1st Provisional Tax (1st QPD).

Payment of the 1st QPD will be on or before the 25th of March 2023. Taxpayers are expected to make a projection on their 3 months revenue and expenditure for the period January to March 2023.

Overview of Provisional Tax (QPD) in Zimbabwe.

Income tax is paid on quarterly basis in advance of year end on 25 March, 25 June, 25 September and 20 December at 10%, 25%, 30% and 35% respectively of estimated annual tax liability.

A QPD not paid on time or understated is subject to interest at the rate of at prevailing interest charges. The Commissioner can however waive or reduce the interest on a QPD which is understated by not more 10% margin of error or if he is satisfied that a person required to pay provisional tax was, through special circumstances, unable to pay the whole or part of an installment of provisional tax payable by him.

The provisional tax is not a final tax. After the actual tax payable by a person has been determined, the Commissioner will set off any amount of provisional tax paid against the actual tax payable. Where there is an over-payment, the amount is set off against any other tax or amount due and payable to the Commissioner by the taxpayer. If there is no such amount the amount will be refunded to the person.

Provisional Tax (QPD) Case.

Delta V ZIMRA 

Headnote and holding:

The applicant company was obliged, under s 72(2) of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06], to pay provisional tax based on estimates of its profits per quarter year. During the financial years 2009 and 2010, the applicant underestimated its profits, resulting in an underpayment by it for provisional tax. The under-estimation exceeded 10 per cent. The respondent demanded, in terms of s 72(7), payment of interest in respect of the underpayments.

The applicant disputed liability, arguing that at that time there was a proviso to s 72(7), which stated that “the Commissioner shall waive interest under circumstances where the taxpayer fails to forecast profits within a ten per centum margin of error”. The respondent argued that the proviso should be read as though the words “fail to” were not there. The applicant contended that the position adopted by the respondent, in effect, asked the court to re-write the legislation, something the court could not do. In the interpretation of tax legislation which is uncertain, the contra fiscum maxim applies.

Held: In enacting s 72(7), the legislature changed the concept in the proviso from one being a penalty to one requiring the payment of interest. This amendment was made during the hyper-inflation period, where taxpayers might have problems to estimate their provisional tax with any accuracy. The golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that where the language used in a statute is plain and unambiguous it should be given its ordinary meaning, unless that would lead to some absurdity or inconsistency with the intention of the legislature. Intention is not to be ascertained by surmise, however probable such surmise may be.

When to give the plain words of the statute their ordinary meaning would lead to absurdity so glaring that it could never have been contemplated by the legislature, or where it would lead to a result contrary to the intention of the legislature, as shown by the context or by such other considerations as the court is justified in taking into account, the court may depart from the ordinary effect of the words to the extent necessary to remove the absurdity and give effect to the true intention of the legislature. Here, the court was dealing with interpretation of tax legislation. In the case of ambiguity arising during the interpretation of fiscal legislation, the contra fiscum rule will be applicable.

This is a common law principle stipulating that should a taxing statutory provision reveal ambiguity, the ambiguous provision must be interpreted in a manner that favours a taxpayer or imposes the smaller burden on the taxpayer. When Parliament subsequently amended s 72(7) by repealing the proviso, it did not make the changes retrospective, as it could have. The existing rights given in terms of the proviso to s 72(7) were not affected.

QPD Rates.

The rates for QPD on estimated annual taxable income are as below.