TaxIntellilytics Stories

The dispatch book · File 033 · last verified 28 October 2026

TaxIntellilytics Stories · The Dispatch Book · taxintellilyticsstories.com/research/reform-tracker/TIL-REF-2026-033 · printed

File 033 · from International Growth Centre · to MoFPED and Parliament

Appraise taxes on digital financial services for their effects on access, trust and stability, not revenue alone.

545days in the tray, no public evidence of actionRecommended 1 May 2025

Evidence slip

Sent01.05.25ReviewedLawDone

From International Growth Centre · to MoFPED (policy; presents tax bills) and Parliament (enactment) · Excise

“Taxes on digital services should therefore be evaluated not only in fiscal terms but also with regard to their systemic implications for financial access, trust, and resilience”

Conclusion, PDF p.16

The desks

Sent01.05.25Mobile money tax: financial inclusion versus financial devel…
Reviewed
no evidence
Law
no evidence
Funded
no evidence
Under way
no evidence
Done
no evidence
Evaluated
no evidence

Sent, 1 May 2025. Recommended in Mobile money tax: financial inclusion versus financial development (IGC final report) (Conclusion, PDF p.16).

The route slip

From finding to result, link by link

Each box is one link of the reform chain. ✓ documented; ? claimed but not documented; · no evidence yet, with what it needs. This file stops at: Action.

  1. FindingDocumentedThe 2018 mobile money tax cut usage, especially for small and rural users, and shifted bank lending toward safer borrowers.
  2. ProblemDocumentedThe mobile money tax was regressive and its abrupt revision eroded trust.
  3. RecommendationDocumented"Taxes on digital services should therefore be evaluated not only in fiscal terms but also with regard to their systemic implications for financial access, trust, and resilience" (International Growth Centre (Spadavecchia, Mugume, Apaa), Conclusion, PDF p.16)
  4. Legal powerDocumentedPFM Act 2015 s.8 (the Minister presents tax and revenue bills to Parliament); opened, PFMA-S8
  5. InstitutionNamedMoFPED (policy; presents tax bills) and Parliament (enactment)
  6. ActionNo evidence yetneeds a dated decision, response or delivery document
  7. OutputNo evidence yetneeds a published output measure
  8. OutcomeNo evidence yetneeds an outcome measure with a baseline
  9. EvaluationNo evidence yetneeds an evaluation with a stated method

Why it was recommended

Finding. The 2018 mobile money tax cut usage, especially for small and rural users, and shifted bank lending toward safer borrowers.

Problem. The mobile money tax was regressive and its abrupt revision eroded trust.

Strength of the evidence behind it: high.

Who has the power to act

MoFPED (policy; presents tax bills) and Parliament (enactment). Legal power checked: PFM Act 2015 s.8 (the Minister presents tax and revenue bills to Parliament); opened, PFMA-S8.

Sources

  • Mobile money tax: financial inclusion versus financial development (IGC final report)
    International Growth Centre (Spadavecchia, Mugume, Apaa) · 2025-05-01 · Policy Implications and Recommendations and Conclusion, PDF pp.15 to 16