Facing tax court? Get your case independently reviewed first.
Tax litigation is expensive, slow and public. Before you commit to it — or walk into it unprepared as URA escalates — an independent, unsentimental review of your case tells you what you're really holding: the strengths, the fatal weaknesses, and the settlement value. Led by Odur Micheal, ex-URA.
The most expensive place to discover your case's weakness is inside the courtroom.
By the time a tax dispute approaches litigation — whether you're appealing onward from the Tribunal or URA is escalating against you — the stakes have compounded: the disputed tax, accumulated interest, both sides' costs, and precedent that will govern how URA treats you for years.
Lawyers argue the law; but tax cases are won and lost on the tax-technical record — the computations, the reconciliations, the documentary trail built (or not built) years earlier. An advocate inherits that record; a tax specialist can stress-test it. Which figures survive hostile scrutiny? Which of URA's positions are actually weak? What would this case settle for today, versus what the trial outcomes look like?
Our pre-litigation review answers those questions independently, before your money is committed — and if you proceed, it arms your legal team with the technical foundation the case will stand on.
The cost of waiting: Litigation locks in trajectories: positions plead, costs mount, and settlement windows narrow. The review is worth most before pleadings close — after that, options only shrink.
What this can cost you
- Committing six-figure legal costs to a case with a fatal technical flaw
- Settlement opportunities missed because nobody priced the case honestly
- Advocates arguing from computations that collapse under cross-examination
- Interest compounding on the disputed amount through years of proceedings
- An adverse precedent that shapes URA's treatment of you permanently
- Walking into URA's escalation unprepared, on their timetable
What people assume
“Our lawyers have it covered — a tax specialist would just duplicate what they're doing.”
What's actually true
Advocates and tax specialists do different jobs. Your lawyers argue procedure and law; the case's spine is the tax-technical record — numbers, reconciliations, statutory computations. An independent specialist review finds the weaknesses URA will find, while there's still time to fix or settle around them. Good litigation teams ask for this; the best ones insist on it.
What we handle for you
- Independent merits review of the entire technical record
- Evidence audit: what exists, what's missing, what can still be built
- Quantification: best case, worst case, and probable outcome in shillings
- Settlement valuation and negotiation strategy
- Expert support to your advocates — computations, schedules, witness preparation
- Where wiser, a managed exit: structured settlement before trial
A defined process, start to finish
We review
Full case-file review: assessments, correspondence, pleadings, computations. Independent, privileged and unsentimental.
We report
A written opinion: merits by issue, evidence gaps, cost-benefit of proceeding versus settling, and a recommended strategy.
We prepare
If you proceed: technical schedules, expert input and witness preparation alongside your advocates. If you settle: we negotiate the exit.
Deliverables
- Written independent merits opinion, issue by issue
- Evidence audit with gap-closure plan
- Financial exposure model: outcomes priced in UGX
- Settlement valuation and strategy memorandum
- Litigation support pack for your legal team
- Negotiated settlement handling where chosen
Priced to your situation — not a rate card
Fixed-fee review first — so the decision to spend more is made with the report in hand, not before it.
“Meet 'Mwesige Construction' — UGX 480M in dispute, advocates instructed, trial approaching. Our review found two of URA's four positions were strong and two were baseless. Armed with that split, the client settled the strong issues at a discount and litigated only the weak ones — cutting total exposure by more than half and eighteen months of proceedings.”
Illustrative composite scenario reflecting real client patterns — details changed to protect confidentiality.
FAQs — Pre-Litigation Risk Review
The moment litigation becomes realistic — ideally before pleadings are finalised, and always before major costs are committed. The review's value shrinks as positions lock in.
No — it equips them. Advocates argue the case; we stress-test and build the technical record it stands on. Most engagements are three-way collaborations with your legal team, under privilege.
Then you've bought the cheapest possible version of that news, while settlement is still available on decent terms. An honest 'settle now' opinion routinely saves clients more than any victory would have.
Yes — defensive reviews are half the practice. When URA escalates, knowing the true strength of their technical case, fast, determines whether you fight, settle or restructure the exposure.
Fully — and we work within your advocates' privilege framework where proceedings are live. Candour requires confidentiality; both are absolute here.
Not sure where you stand? Let's find out — before URA does it for you.
A 30-minute consultation tells you exactly where you stand, what it will cost to fix, and what happens if you wait. No obligation.