The Tribunal found that the Respondent's testimony showed that the totality of the Appellant's transactions did not support a reasonable commercial transaction. It was instead an elaborate scheme to avoid payment of tax in Kenya. The Appellant's failure to discharge the burden of proof that had shifted back to it to show that it was not involved in a tax avoidance scheme was not discharged. The testimony of the Respondents witness, Mr. John Ekadah, regarding the elaborate tax evasion scheme on the part of the Appellant thus stood proved.