By Adewale Sanyaolu
The Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG) has dismissed recent media reports alleging that a Tax Appeal Tribunal mandated the company to pay $27.5 million to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) as a revised Company Income Tax (CIT) settlement for 2016.
In a statement, NLNG’s General Manager for External Relations and Sustainable Development, Mr. Andy Odey, clarified that the payment was part of an amicable out-of-court settlement between NLNG and FIRS. This settlement, adopted as a Consent Judgment by the Tribunal, did not reflect any tribunal-ordered payment.
“The payment by NLNG was made in furtherance of a settlement agreement reached between the parties, not due to any tribunal order,” Odey emphasized. He reiterated that NLNG remains a responsible corporate entity, adhering to Nigerian laws and striving to build a better Nigeria as a globally competitive LNG company.
Previously, NLNG had sued FIRS to prevent the collection of $141.75 million as CIT for the year in question, challenging FIRS’s additional assessment notice dated December 15, 2021, and the Notice of Refusal to Amend dated March 22, 2022. The appeal, marked TAT/ABJ/APP/331/2022, was filed on April 21, 2022.
The tribunal’s judgment, delivered last Thursday and made public on Tuesday, noted that the parties had been negotiating a settlement throughout the trial. On July 10, 2024, both parties filed terms of settlement with the tribunal. According to these terms, NLNG agreed to pay FIRS $27.5 million as a full and final settlement of the revised CIT assessment by July 12, 2024.
The tribunal confirmed that NLNG had remitted the agreed amount on July 8, 2024, thus finalizing the settlement and adopting it as the tribunal’s judgment.
Earlier, the tribunal had dismissed an interlocutory motion by NLNG seeking to disqualify the tribunal from further proceedings. NLNG argued for the recusal of the chairperson, Iriogbe, and member Mr. Ajayi Bamidele, both former FIRS employees, due to potential bias.
However, the tribunal found no valid reason for recusal and dismissed the motion, citing statutory provisions and labeling the application as frivolous.