When a taxpayer and ZIMRA disagree about a capital gains tax (CGT) assessment or a Commissioner's decision, the dispute is resolved through a structured, time-bound process of objection and then appeal. The gateway is Section 25 of the Capital Gains Tax Act [Chapter 23:01], which gives a taxpayer "aggrieved by any assessment made upon him" or by a defined list of the Commissioner's discretionary decisions the right to object within 30 days. Section 25 does not build its own machinery from scratch; instead it applies, mutatis mutandis, the objection-and-appeal provisions of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] — specifically subsections (2)–(6) of Section 62 and Sections 63 to 70 — so the CGT dispute pathway is, in substance, the income-tax pathway you met in Provisional Tax, QPDs and PAYE Administration, transposed onto capital gains.

The pathway has three tiers. Tier 1 — objection to the Commissioner. A taxpayer must lodge a written objection, specifying in detail the grounds, within 30 days of the notice of assessment or of the written notification of the decision (Section 25(1) of the CGT Act; Section 62(3) of the Taxes Act). The Commissioner may reduce, alter or disallow the assessment; if he does not notify his decision within 3 months, the objection is deemed to have been disallowed (proviso to Section 62(4)). If no objection is lodged, or an objection is disallowed or withdrawn, the assessment becomes final and conclusive (Section 62(5)).

Tier 2 — appeal to the High Court or the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals. A dissatisfied taxpayer may appeal, electing either the High Court or the Special Court (Section 65(1), read with the Twelfth Schedule), by lodging a written notice of appeal with the Commissioner within 21 days of the decision (Section 65(2)). The appeal is a full rehearing (PL Mines (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-466), but the appellant's arguments are limited to the grounds stated in the notice of objection (Section 65(4)) — there is no "ambushing" with fresh grounds. Hearings are held in private (Section 65(7)) and no order for costs is made unless the Commissioner's claim was unreasonable or the appeal frivolous (Section 65(12)).

Tier 3 — appeal to the Supreme Court. From the determination of the High Court or Special Court, either party may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law alone as of right, or on a question of fact, or of mixed law and fact, only with leave (Section 66). Subject to that, the lower court's decision is "final and without appeal" (Section 65(13)).

Two principles dominate the whole process. First, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer (Section 63): in any objection or appeal, the person claiming an exemption, non-liability or deduction must prove it, and the court will not reverse the Commissioner's decision unless the appellant shows it is wrong. This is the "double onus" you encountered in Capital vs Revenue Receipts. Second, objecting or appealing does not suspend the duty to pay (Section 69): the obligation to pay the tax "shall not, unless the Commissioner otherwise directs, be suspended pending a decision on any objection or appeal" — the pay-now-argue-later rule (Ellis N.O. v Commissioner of Taxes 92-SC-001). If the assessment is later altered, a due adjustment (refund or further recovery) is made.

What can be disputed is also defined. Beyond the assessment itself, Section 25(1)(b) lists the specific Commissioner decisions that may be objected to — among them the fair-market-price deeming under Section 8(2)(b) and (e), valuation and cost decisions under Section 11, the damage/destruction determination under Section 13(3), the fair market price determination under Section 14, the intra-group transfer decision under Section 15, and the principal private residence determinations under Section 21. By contrast, Section 68 confirms that, save for those listed decisions, no decision of the Commissioner is subject to objection or appeal. The leading CGT authority confirming that these income-tax procedures govern CGT disputes is Sommer Ranching (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 99-SC-065. This lesson walks the entire pathway clause by clause, works a dated timeline, integrates the controlling case law, and flags the traps that cost taxpayers their right to be heard.

Tax is imposed by law, but applying the law to the messy facts of a real transaction inevitably produces disagreement. A taxpayer sells a farm; ZIMRA thinks the sale price understates the true value and substitutes a higher fair market price. A widow claims her late husband's house was the principal private residence and so qualifies for relief; the Commissioner disagrees. A company transfers land to a sister company and claims the intra-group roll-over; ZIMRA refuses. In each case money turns on a contestable judgement. A tax system that gave the Commissioner the last word, with no avenue of challenge, would be neither fair nor lawful. The objections-and-appeals process is the rule-of-law safety valve: it lets the taxpayer test the Commissioner's view, first administratively (objection) and then before an independent court (appeal), within fixed time limits that give both sides certainty.

For CGT this matters acutely because the Act vests the Commissioner with several explicit discretions that directly drive the tax. The whole base can turn on the Commissioner's opinion of the fair market price of a specified asset disposed of otherwise than by sale (Section 8(2)(b)) — a gift, a distribution, an undervalue transfer. It can turn on his view of the cost to be attributed to an asset acquired before 1 August 1981 (Section 11(2)(a)(ii)A), or on whether a dwelling meets the statutory principal private residence definition (Section 21). Because these are matters of judgement, they are the natural flashpoints of CGT disputes, and Section 25 lists each of them as objectionable precisely so that the taxpayer can challenge them.

Where does this lesson sit in the chapter? It is the procedural counterpart to the substantive CGT lessons. The Introduction to Capital Gains established the charge (Section 6), the calculation (Section 7), the three amounts (Section 8), and the rates (Finance Act Section 38). The Returns and Assessments lesson (CGT Returns and Assessments) covers how a liability is declared and assessed in the first place. This lesson covers what happens after an assessment the taxpayer disputes, and it feeds directly into Payment and Recovery of CGT (Payment of CGT and Clearance Certificates, the pay-now-argue-later interaction) and Enforcement. Because CGT borrows the income-tax machinery wholesale, it also sits alongside Provisional Tax, QPDs and PAYE Administration, and the two can be studied together.

The topic is heavily examinable and a recurring source of real-world failure, because the rights it confers are easily forfeited. A taxpayer who misses the 30-day objection window, or the 21-day appeal window, or who lodges a vague objection that fails to "specify in detail the grounds," can lose an otherwise winnable case on procedure alone. ZIMRA, for its part, watches for objections lodged against decisions that are not objectionable (for example, a fixed-percentage withholding) and for appeals that try to smuggle in new grounds. Mastering the procedure is therefore as valuable to a practitioner as mastering the substantive law — a correct computation is worthless if the right to argue it is lost.

Section 25 of the Capital Gains Tax Act [Chapter 23:01]

Section 25 sits in Part VI (Objections and Appeals) and has two subsections. Section 25(1) confers the right to object:

"Any taxpayer who is aggrieved by— (a) any assessment made upon him under this Act; or (b) any decision of the Commissioner mentioned in [a list of provisions] … may, unless it is otherwise provided in this Act, object to such assessment or decision within 30 days after the date of the notice of assessment or of the written notification of the decision in the manner and under the terms prescribed by this Act."

A proviso adds that nothing in the section gives a further right of objection to the amount of any assessed capital loss determined for a previous year of assessment — you cannot reopen last year's loss through this year's objection.

The list of objectionable decisions in Section 25(1)(b) is the CGT-specific heart of the provision. The decisions that may be objected to are those mentioned in:

• paragraphs (b) and (e) of Section 8(2) — the deeming of a disposal otherwise than by sale to be a sale at the Commissioner's opinion of fair market price (8(2)(b)), and the deeming on maturity or redemption (8(2)(e));
• subparagraph A of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of Section 11(2) — the Commissioner's determination of the fair market value at acquisition of an asset acquired (otherwise than by purchase or inheritance) before 1 August 1981;
• proviso (i) to Section 11(3);
• Section 13(3) — the damage or destruction replacement determination;
• Section 14 — the determination of fair market price of specified assets;
• Section 15 — transfers of specified assets between companies under the same control;
• proviso (i) to Section 19(1) — credit sales where ownership passes;
• the definition of "principal private residence" in Section 21(1), and Sections 21(2) and 21(6) — the PPR determinations.

Section 25(2) then imports the income-tax machinery: "The provisions of— (a) subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 62 of the Taxes Act, relating to objections; and (b) Sections 63 to 70 of the Taxes Act, relating to objections and appeals; shall apply, mutatis mutandis, in relation to this Act." The Supreme Court in Sommer Ranching (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 99-SC-065 (annotated against Section 25) confirms that the CGT dispute is conducted under these borrowed provisions.

The applied Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] provisions

Reading Section 25 therefore requires reading the named Taxes Act sections, adapted so that "income"/"taxable income" become "gross capital amount"/"capital gain" (the cross-application rule in Section 2(2) of the CGT Act).

Section 62 (Time and manner of lodging objections). Subsection (2): the Commissioner will not entertain a late objection unless the taxpayer satisfies him that reasonable grounds exist for the delay. Subsection (3): every objection must be in writing and specify in detail the grounds on which it is made (GC (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-759). Subsection (4): on receiving the objection the Commissioner may reduce, alter or disallow the assessment and must notify the taxpayer; crucially, the proviso (period reduced to 3 months by the Finance (No. 2) Act 8 of 2005) deems the objection disallowed if the Commissioner does not communicate a decision within 3 months (or a longer agreed period). Subsections (5) and (6): once no objection is made, or an objection is disallowed/withdrawn (or allowed), the assessment is final and conclusive, subject only to a court's decision on appeal (Trek Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 17-SC-056).

Section 63 (Burden of proof). In any objection or appeal, "the burden of proof that any amount is exempt from or not liable to the tax or is subject to any deduction … shall be upon the person claiming," and on appeal "the court shall not reverse or alter any decision of the Commissioner unless it is shown by the appellant that the decision is wrong." This is the statutory source of the double onus that pervades Zimbabwean revenue litigation.

Section 64 (Special Court for Income Tax Appeals). Establishes the Special Court as a court of record, presided over by a President who is qualified to be (or is) a High Court judge, sitting in private, with the Registrar of the High Court as its Registrar. It is the specialist tribunal that, alongside the High Court, hears tax appeals.

Section 65 (Appeals to the High Court or Special Court). A taxpayer dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision (or deemed decision under Section 62(4)) may appeal, electing the High Court or the Special Court, under the Twelfth Schedule rules. The notice of appeal must be in writing, state the chosen forum, and be lodged with the Commissioner within 21 days of the Section 62(4) notice (or the expiry of the deemed-disallowance period); otherwise it "shall be of no effect whatsoever," subject to extension on good cause. The appeal is a rehearing; arguments are confined to the grounds in the notice of objection (subsection (4)); sittings are not public (subsection (7)); the court may amend, reduce, withdraw, confirm or refer back the assessment (subsection (10)); costs are awarded only where the Commissioner's claim was unreasonable or the appeal frivolous (subsection (12)); and the decision is final and without appeal, subject to Section 66 (subsection (13)).

Section 66 (Appeals to the Supreme Court). Either party, if dissatisfied, may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law alone as of right (paragraph (a)), or, with leave, on a question of fact alone or of mixed law and fact (paragraph (b)).

Section 68 (Decisions not subject to objection or appeal). Save as provided in Section 62(1)(b) (here, the Section 25 list), no decision of the Commissioner is subject to objection or appeal — a reminder that the right is confined to assessments and the enumerated discretionary decisions.

Section 69 (Payment of tax pending decision). The obligation to pay "shall not, unless the Commissioner otherwise directs and subject to such terms and conditions as he may impose, be suspended pending a decision on any objection or appeal" — pay-now-argue-later (Ellis N.O. v Commissioner of Taxes 92-SC-001). If an assessment is altered on appeal, a due adjustment is made: overpayments refunded, shortfalls recovered.

Section 70 (No disqualification). A judge or assessor is not disqualified from hearing a tax matter merely because he is himself liable to tax.

Old law versus current law

The most consequential procedural amendment is the deemed-disallowance period in Section 62(4), which was reduced to 3 months by the Finance (No. 2) Act 8 of 2005 (w.e.f. 1 January 2006). Previously a taxpayer could be left waiting indefinitely for a decision; now, if 3 months pass without a communicated decision, the objection is deemed disallowed, which both protects the taxpayer (by starting the 21-day appeal clock) and disciplines the administration. Practitioners must diarise the 3-month point, because the right of appeal crystallises there even in the Commissioner's silence.

The CGT dispute process is best understood as a clock-driven pipeline. Each stage has an entry condition, a time limit, a required form, and a consequence for inaction. We build it from the moment an assessment lands.

Step 1 — the trigger: an assessment or an objectionable decision

A dispute can only begin where there is something the Act allows you to object to. Under Section 25(1), that is either an assessment made under the CGT Act or one of the listed decisions of the Commissioner. Two threshold points matter. First, there must be a valid assessment: a purported assessment that is a nullity (for example, raised on the wrong base) cannot found a valid dispute in the ordinary way, and may require a different remedy — the income-tax authorities FMC Finance (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 22-HH-311 (objection does not lie against a fixed percentage of withholding tax, and the assessment must be valid) and Paperhole Investments (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 24-HH-149 (an assessment raised on gross rather than the correct base is invalid) illustrate the point. Transposed to CGT, an assessment computed on the wrong amount — say, treating the gross capital amount as if it were the capital gain — is vulnerable on the same footing. Second, if the grievance is a decision, it must be one of the enumerated decisions; Section 68 shuts out objection to anything else.

Step 2 — the objection (30 days, in writing, detailed grounds)

The taxpayer must lodge a written objection within 30 days of the date of the notice of assessment or of the written notification of the decision (Section 25(1); Section 62(3)). Three formal requirements govern it:

1. Timing. The 30 days runs from the date of the notice, not from receipt. An objection delivered or posted to reach the Commissioner after the last day will not be entertained unless the taxpayer satisfies the Commissioner that reasonable grounds exist for the delay (Section 62(2)). Late objections are at the Commissioner's indulgence, not as of right.
2. Form. The objection must be in writing.
3. Substance. It must specify in detail the grounds on which it is made (Section 62(3)). A bald assertion that the assessment is "excessive" is inadequate; the taxpayer must state why — which valuation is wrong, which deduction was disallowed, which date was mis-applied. GC (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-759 underlines the detailed-grounds requirement, and it has teeth at the appeal stage, because the appellant is later confined to exactly these grounds.

Step 3 — the Commissioner's decision (or deemed disallowance at 3 months)

On receiving the objection, the Commissioner may reduce, alter or disallow the assessment (Section 62(4)(a)) and must notify the taxpayer of the outcome (Section 62(4)(b)). But silence is not indefinite: if the Commissioner has not notified his decision within 3 months of receiving the objection (or within a longer period the parties agree), the objection is deemed to have been disallowed (proviso to Section 62(4)). The practical effect is that, at the 3-month mark, a taxpayer who has heard nothing is treated as having lost the objection — which is good news, because it unlocks the right of appeal that would otherwise be held hostage to administrative delay. If no objection is lodged at all, or the objection is disallowed or withdrawn, the assessment becomes final and conclusive (Section 62(5); Trek Petroleum 17-SC-056) and can be enforced.

Step 4 — the appeal (21 days; elect High Court or Special Court)

A taxpayer dissatisfied with the Commissioner's actual or deemed decision may appeal (Section 65). The notice of appeal must:

• be in writing;
• state whether the appellant elects the High Court or the Special Court (the choice is the taxpayer's — Section 65(1) and the Twelfth Schedule); and
• be lodged with the Commissioner within 21 days of the Section 62(4) notice, or of the expiry of the 3-month deemed-disallowance period (Section 65(2)).

Miss the 21 days and the notice "shall be of no effect whatsoever and the objection shall not be considered further," unless the chosen court, on good cause shown or by agreement, extends the period (proviso to Section 65(2); MA Limited v ZIMRA 16-HH-316). A further procedural step under the Twelfth Schedule (the appellant's case statement, rule 5) carries its own deadline, failing which the appeal is deemed to have lapsed unless relief is granted (Section 65(3)).

Choosing the forum. The Special Court for Income Tax Appeals (Section 64) is the specialist tax tribunal — a President sitting with assessors, expert in revenue matters, hearing in private. The High Court is a court of general jurisdiction. Many appellants prefer the Special Court for its expertise and confidentiality; some prefer the High Court for tactical or jurisdictional reasons. Either way, a critical pleading point applies: the respondent must be correctly cited — citing "The Commissioner-General" instead of the proper respondent has been held illegal and fatal (MGZ (Pvt) Ltd v The Commissioner-General, ZIMRA 21-HH-269).

Step 5 — the hearing: a rehearing on the objection grounds

The appeal is a full rehearing, not merely a review of the Commissioner's reasoning: the judge "is not restricted by the considerations of the Commissioner and may take into account all the factors raised by both counsel" (PL Mines (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-466). But there is a vital constraint: under Section 65(4), the appellant's arguments are limited to the grounds stated in the notice of objection. There is to be no "ambushing" with fresh grounds at the hearing (FMC Finance 22-HH-311), unless the court grants leave on good cause or the parties agree (proviso; and GC 15-HH-759, where no leave was sought). This is why the detailed grounds in the original objection are decisive — they set the outer boundary of everything the taxpayer can later argue. The burden of proof rests throughout on the taxpayer (Section 63): the court will not disturb the Commissioner's decision unless the appellant proves it is wrong. Hearings are private (Section 65(7)), and the court may amend, reduce, withdraw, confirm, or refer the assessment back to the Commissioner (Section 65(10)).

Step 6 — costs and finality

The tax courts do not ordinarily award costs: under Section 65(12), costs are ordered only where the Commissioner's claim is held to be unreasonable or the grounds of appeal frivolous. The decision of the High Court or Special Court is then final and without appeal (Section 65(13)) — subject only to Section 66.

Step 7 — onward to the Supreme Court

Under Section 66, a party dissatisfied with the determination may appeal to the Supreme Court:

• on a question of law alone — as of right (Section 66(1)(a)); but
• on a question of fact alone, or of mixed law and fact — only with leave (Section 66(1)(b)), granted by a judge of the High Court or President of the Special Court, or, on refusal, by a judge of the Supreme Court.

The distinction matters enormously in practice: most CGT disputes turn on facts (was this the principal private residence? what was the fair market price?), and a party who lost on the facts below generally cannot appeal further without leave (Ka. v Commissioner of Taxes 93-SC-001; BCM (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 23-SC-006).

The cross-cutting rule: pay now, argue later (Section 69)

Running underneath every stage is Section 69: lodging an objection or appeal does not suspend the obligation to pay the assessed tax, "unless the Commissioner otherwise directs." A taxpayer who disputes a CGT assessment must therefore generally pay the tax (or arrange terms with the Commissioner) while the dispute proceeds (Ellis N.O. v Commissioner of Taxes 92-SC-001; ZIMRA need not issue any further notice — Central African Road Services (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 17-HH-110). If the taxpayer ultimately wins, Section 69(2) requires a due adjustment: overpaid amounts are refunded and any shortfall is recoverable. For CGT this interlocks with the clearance problem — because a transfer of immovable property cannot register without a CGT clearance, a taxpayer in dispute often pays under protest to obtain the clearance and unlock the conveyance, then pursues the objection/appeal for a refund.

Individuals — a dated objection timeline

Mrs Chari sells a residential property and on 3 March 2025 receives a CGT assessment. ZIMRA has denied her principal private residence claim (a Section 21 decision, expressly objectionable under Section 25(1)(b)) and assessed USD 9,000. Her pathway, with dates:

If Mrs Chari lets the 30-day window lapse, her assessment becomes final and conclusive and the PPR argument is lost regardless of its merits. If she objects in time but the Commissioner is silent, she must treat the objection as deemed disallowed at 3 months and lodge her appeal within 21 days thereafter.

SMEs and partnerships — disputing a valuation

A common SME dispute is a fair-market-price substitution. Mwedzi Hardware (Pvt) Ltd gifts a commercial stand to its founder's family trust. Because this is a disposal otherwise than by sale, Section 8(2)(b) deems a sale at the Commissioner's opinion of fair market price; ZIMRA fixes that at USD 150,000, against the taxpayer's USD 110,000 valuation, producing extra CGT. The Section 8(2)(b) decision is expressly objectionable (Section 25(1)(b)). The company's objection must specify in detail why USD 110,000 is correct — typically attaching an independent valuation — because those very grounds will bound its later appeal. Under Section 63 the company bears the burden of proving the Commissioner's valuation wrong; a credible, well-evidenced valuation is therefore the whole battle. Partnerships dispute through the partners, each objecting to the apportioned assessment.

Large corporates and multinationals — high-value, often factual

For large taxpayers the disputes are high-value and frequently factual or valuation-driven: the value attributed to land or shares on an intra-group transfer (Section 15 — expressly objectionable), the cost base of a pre-1 August 1981 asset (Section 11(2)(a)(ii)A — expressly objectionable), or the special CGT on the acquisition of a mining title (Section 30B). Corporates typically elect the Special Court for its expertise and the privacy of its hearings (Section 65(7)), engage expert valuers, and — because of pay-now-argue-later — must budget the cash-flow cost of paying disputed CGT up front while the appeal runs, recovering it later if successful. The confinement to objection grounds (Section 65(4)) makes the drafting of the original objection a board-level risk point: a ground omitted at objection stage is, in practice, a ground lost.

Worked illustration — the cost of missing the clock

Two taxpayers, same merits. Both are assessed USD 12,000 of CGT on a disputed valuation. Taxpayer A objects on day 25 with detailed grounds, appeals to the Special Court within 21 days of a deemed disallowance, proves the Commissioner's valuation wrong, and the assessment is reduced to USD 4,000 — a USD 8,000 saving. Taxpayer B, with an identical case, objects on day 40. Under Section 62(2) the Commissioner declines to entertain the late objection (no reasonable grounds for delay shown); the assessment becomes final and conclusive under Section 62(5); and Taxpayer B pays the full USD 12,000. The lesson is stark: procedure, not merit, decided the outcome.

The objections-and-appeals jurisprudence is drawn from the income-tax cases that Section 25 imports; they govern CGT disputes by virtue of Section 25(2) and Sommer Ranching.

Sommer Ranching (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 99-SC-065. Annotated against Section 25, this Supreme Court authority confirms that CGT objections and appeals are conducted under the borrowed Taxes Act provisions (Sections 62–70). It is the anchor that makes the entire income-tax procedure applicable to capital gains.

Sabeta M v Commissioner-General, ZIMRA 12-HH-079. Although decided on Section 7, it is relevant here because it confirms that ZIMRA cannot refuse to assess and issue a CGT certificate once the tax is paid — protecting the taxpayer who pays under protest (Section 69) to obtain a clearance while pursuing a dispute.

FMC Finance (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 22-HH-311. Establishes that an objection does not lie against a fixed percentage of withholding tax, that the assessment must be valid, and that an appellant may not "ambush" with grounds not raised in the objection (Section 65(4)). For CGT, this guards against objecting to the mechanical withholding (Part IIIA) as opposed to the final assessment.

Paperhole Investments (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 24-HH-149. An assessment raised on gross rather than the correct (taxable) base was invalid. By analogy, a CGT assessment that taxes the gross capital amount where it should tax the capital gain (post-2019 assets) is vulnerable on the same ground.

GC (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-759. Reinforces the requirement to specify the grounds in detail (Section 62(3)) and the confinement of appeal arguments to those grounds where no leave to expand was sought (Section 65(4)).

MGZ (Pvt) Ltd v The Commissioner-General, ZIMRA 21-HH-269. Citing "The Commissioner-General" as respondent was held illegal and fatal — a salutary warning on correct citation in CGT appeals.

PL Mines (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-466. Confirms that the appeal is a rehearing, in which the judge is not restricted to the Commissioner's considerations and weighs all the evidence afresh — while the burden remains on the taxpayer (Section 63).

Ellis N.O. v Commissioner of Taxes 92-SC-001. The leading authority for pay-now-argue-later (Section 69): the obligation to pay is not suspended by an objection or appeal.

Ka. v Commissioner of Taxes 93-SC-001; BCM (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 23-SC-006. Illustrate the Section 66 gateway to the Supreme Court — law alone as of right; fact or mixed law and fact only with leave — which constrains onward appeals in the typically fact-heavy CGT context.

Pitfall 1 — missing the 30-day objection window. The single most common and most fatal error. The clock runs from the date of the notice, and a late objection is entertained only if the Commissioner accepts there were reasonable grounds for delay (Section 62(2)). Correct approach: diarise the deadline the day the assessment arrives; lodge well before day 30.

Pitfall 2 — vague grounds. An objection that does not specify in detail the grounds (Section 62(3)) is defective and, worse, caps the appeal: under Section 65(4) the appellant cannot argue grounds not raised in the objection. Correct approach: plead every conceivable ground fully and specifically at objection stage, attaching valuations and evidence.

Pitfall 3 — raising new grounds on appeal. "Ambushing" the Commissioner with fresh grounds is impermissible without leave (FMC Finance 22-HH-311; GC 15-HH-759). Correct approach: if a new ground emerges, apply for leave on good cause — do not assume it will be allowed.

Pitfall 4 — assuming the dispute suspends payment. It does not. Under Section 69 the tax remains due and payable during the objection/appeal unless the Commissioner directs otherwise (Ellis N.O. 92-SC-001). Correct approach: pay (often under protest, to obtain the CGT clearance), or negotiate terms, then pursue the refund.

Pitfall 5 — objecting to a non-objectionable matter. Section 68 confines objection to the assessment and the listed Section 25(1)(b) decisions; objecting to a fixed-percentage withholding or an unlisted administrative act is misconceived (FMC Finance 22-HH-311). Correct approach: identify which listed decision or assessment is under challenge; if the grievance is mechanical withholding, address it through the assessment/credit, not an objection to the withholding.

Pitfall 6 — mis-citing the respondent. Citing "The Commissioner-General" has been held fatal (MGZ 21-HH-269). Correct approach: use the correct respondent and forum in the notice of appeal.

Pitfall 7 — letting the deemed-disallowance point pass unnoticed. If the Commissioner is silent, the objection is deemed disallowed at 3 months (Section 62(4) proviso), and the 21-day appeal clock starts then. A taxpayer waiting for an express decision can let the appeal window close. Correct approach: diarise the 3-month point and treat silence as a disallowance.

Pitfall 8 — confusing the forum gateways. The High Court/Special Court decision is final except via Section 66, where facts and mixed questions need leave. Treating a factual loss as automatically appealable to the Supreme Court wastes time and costs. Correct approach: isolate whether the proposed appeal is on law (as of right) or fact/mixed (leave required).

Work through the questions one at a time. Choose an answer and it is graded immediately, with an explanation and the provision it comes from. Your progress is saved, so you can stop and resume.

• The CGT dispute process is the income-tax process: Section 25 of the CGT Act applies, mutatis mutandis, Section 62(2)–(6) and Sections 63–70 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] (Sommer Ranching 99-SC-065).
• Object within 30 days, in writing, specifying detailed grounds (Section 25(1); Section 62(3)); a vague or late objection can be fatal and caps the later appeal.
• Silence = deemed disallowance at 3 months (Section 62(4) proviso, reduced by Finance (No. 2) Act 8/2005), which starts the 21-day appeal clock.
• Appeal within 21 days, electing the High Court or Special Court (Section 65; Twelfth Schedule); the appeal is a rehearing (PL Mines 15-HH-466) but confined to the objection grounds (Section 65(4)); hearings are private; costs are rare (Section 65(12)).
• Only listed decisions are objectionable (Section 25(1)(b)) — fair market price (Section 8(2)(b)/(e), Section 14), pre-1981 cost (Section 11), damage/destruction (Section 13(3)), intra-group transfer (Section 15), credit sales (Section 19), and PPR (Section 21) — and Section 68 bars objection to anything else.
• The taxpayer carries the burden (Section 63, the "double onus"): the court will not overturn the Commissioner unless shown he is wrong, so evidence must be marshalled before objecting.
• Pay now, argue later (Section 69): objecting/appealing does not suspend payment (Ellis N.O. 92-SC-001); winners get a due adjustment/refund (Section 69(2)).
• Onward to the Supreme Court only via Section 66 — law alone as of right; fact or mixed law and fact only with leave — which constrains the typically fact-heavy CGT appeal.
• Get the formalities right: correct respondent and forum (MGZ 21-HH-269), a valid assessment (FMC Finance 22-HH-311; Paperhole 24-HH-149), and the deadlines diarised — in CGT disputes, procedure decides as many cases as merit.

Table 1 — the dispute pathway at a glance

Table 2 — High Court versus Special Court for Income Tax Appeals

Table 3 — objectionable versus non-objectionable

Diagram 1 — the CGT objection-and-appeal pathway

flowchart TD
 A[CGT assessment or listed decision] --> B{Object within 30 days, in writing, detailed grounds}
 B -->|No| C[Assessment final and conclusive - Section 62 5]
 B -->|Yes| D[Commissioner considers objection]
 D --> E{Decision within 3 months}
 E -->|Yes - allowed| F[Adjusted assessment issued]
 E -->|Yes - disallowed| G[Right of appeal arises]
 E -->|No reply| H[Deemed disallowed at 3 months - Section 62 4]
 G --> I{Appeal within 21 days - elect High Court or Special Court}
 H --> I
 I -->|No| C
 I -->|Yes| J[Rehearing - grounds confined to objection - burden on taxpayer]
 J --> K{Decision}
 K -->|Taxpayer wins| L[Assessment reduced - refund under Section 69 2]
 K -->|Taxpayer loses| M{Appeal to Supreme Court}
 M -->|Law alone| N[As of right - Section 66 a]
 M -->|Fact or mixed| O[Only with leave - Section 66 b]
 J -.pay now argue later Section 69.-> P[Tax remains payable throughout]

Statutes & sections

• Capital Gains Tax Act [Chapter 23:01] — Section 25 (objections and appeals): Section 25(1) confers the 30-day right to object to an assessment or a listed Commissioner decision (Section 8(2)(b)/(e) fair market price; Section 11(2)(a)(ii)A pre-1981 cost; Section 11(3) proviso (i); Section 13(3) damage/destruction; Section 14 fair market price; Section 15 intra-group transfer; Section 19(1) proviso (i) credit sales; Section 21(1)/(2)/(6) principal private residence); Section 25(2) applies Taxes Act Section 62(2)–(6) and Sections 63–70 mutatis mutandis. Related: Section 7 (calculation), Section 8 (definitions/deemed sales), Section 26 (payment), Section 2(2) (cross-application of Taxes Act expressions).
• Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] (applied by CGT Section 25) — Section 62 (time and manner of objections: 30 days; writing; detailed grounds; 3-month deemed disallowance, period reduced by Finance (No. 2) Act 8/2005; final and conclusive); Section 63 (burden of proof — the double onus); Section 64 (Special Court for Income Tax Appeals); Section 65 (appeals to High Court or Special Court — 21-day notice; election; grounds confined to objection; private hearing; powers; costs; finality); Section 66 (appeals to the Supreme Court — law as of right, fact/mixed by leave); Section 68 (decisions not subject to objection or appeal); Section 69 (payment of tax pending decision — pay-now-argue-later; due adjustment); Section 70 (no disqualification of judge/assessor). Twelfth Schedule (rules for appeals).
• Finance (No. 2) Act 8 of 2005 — reduced the Section 62(4) deemed-disallowance period to 3 months (w.e.f. 1 January 2006).

Case law (income-tax authorities applied to CGT via Section 25; annotated in the source Acts)

• Sommer Ranching (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 99-SC-065 — CGT objections/appeals are governed by the borrowed Taxes Act provisions (Section 25).
• Ellis N.O. v Commissioner of Taxes 92-SC-001 — pay-now-argue-later; objection/appeal does not suspend payment (Section 69).
• PL Mines (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-466 — the appeal is a rehearing; burden remains on the taxpayer (Sections 63, 65).
• GC (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 15-HH-759 — grounds must be specified in detail; appeal confined to objection grounds (Sections 62(3), 65(4)).
• FMC Finance (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 22-HH-311 — no objection against a fixed-percentage withholding; assessment must be valid; no "ambushing" with new grounds.
• Paperhole Investments (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 24-HH-149 — assessment on the wrong base (gross v taxable) is invalid.
• MGZ (Pvt) Ltd v The Commissioner-General, ZIMRA 21-HH-269 — mis-citing "The Commissioner-General" is fatal.
• Trek Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 17-SC-056 — disallowed/unobjected assessment is final and conclusive (Section 62(5)).
• MA Limited v ZIMRA 16-HH-316 — extension of the appeal period on good cause (Section 65(2) proviso).
• Ka. v Commissioner of Taxes 93-SC-001; BCM (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 23-SC-006 — Supreme Court gateway: law as of right, fact/mixed by leave (Section 66).
• Central African Road Services (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMRA 17-HH-110 — no further notice required to enforce payment pending appeal (Section 69).
• Sabeta M v Commissioner-General, ZIMRA 12-HH-079 — ZIMRA must assess and issue a CGT certificate once tax is paid (relevant to paying under protest).

ZIMRA guidance

• Comprehensive Guide to Form CGT 1 (ZIMRA External Guide) — the return and assessment that an objection challenges.
• ZIMRA public notices on CGT clearance (the practical reason taxpayers pay under protest under Section 69).