Businesses that have undergone an audit by the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), or may face one in the future, should take note of a significant measure in the Finance Bill 2026, introduced on 24 July 2026. Clause 10 creates a new binding “compliance agreement” between a taxpayer and the MRA before an assessment is raised.  

In practical terms, the measure allows the taxpayer to negotiate and close out a tax audit by agreement. The compliance agreement mechanism is expected to come into effect shortly after enactment, likely within the coming weeks.

The significance of this reform becomes clear when one considers the current system where the cost just to challenge an assessment from the MRA can be substantial. 

Ask any business that has been through a MRA audit what hurts most, and the answer is rarely the assessment itself. It is the price of disagreeing with it. To challenge an assessment, you must first pay 10 per cent of the tax claimed – up to Rs 5-million – just to lodge an objection. Taking the fight further, to the Revenue Tribunal, costs another 5 per cent. Meanwhile interest runs at up to 1 per cent a month, and your case joins a queue the Tribunal inherited from its predecessor's notoriously long backlog. 

Pay first, argue later, wait years. For companies that chose Mauritius precisely for its stability and predictability, it is often the most unwelcome discovery about doing business here.

With the new measure, businesses would be able to step off the pay-first treadmill entirely.

What is a compliance agreement?

The new section 7BA of the Mauritius Revenue Authority Act allows the MRA's Director-General to sign a written settlement with a taxpayer at any point before a notice of assessment, a claim, or a decision on an objection is issued. It covers any Revenue Law, not just income tax. 

The agreement records what has been agreed, states the tax, penalties and interest payable, and sets out the payment terms. Importantly, it also requires from you a declaration that you have fully and truthfully disclosed all facts relevant to your tax position.

Once signed, the deal is final and binding on both sides. As the taxpayer, you give up your right to object or appeal on the matters covered. In exchange, the Budget materials confirm a meaningful incentive: where a taxpayer cooperates fully during the audit, the Director-General may waive or reduce penalties altogether. 

However, there is one carve-out to be aware of: the MRA can reopen matters if it subsequently obtains material information that was not available at signing, or if you failed to disclose material facts.

Why now?

Mauritius has been steadily rebuilding how tax disputes are resolved. The Revenue Tribunal opened its doors on 5 January 2026, replacing the Assessment Review Committee with stricter timelines and a more court-like process. 

Prior to that, the MRA ran two settlement-style schemes: the Alternative Tax Dispute Resolution panel, introduced in 2016-2017 for disputes above Rs 10-million, and the Expeditious Dispute Resolution Tax Scheme, set up in July 2017 for smaller legacy cases, which ran until August 2020 and offered penalty waivers of up to 100 per cent. 

Both worked. The MRA reported that together they recovered Rs 431.4-million in the 2018-2019 fiscal year alone. But those schemes only kicked in after an assessment existed – once positions had hardened and the 10 per cent had been paid. 

Now, the compliance agreement moves the settlement conversation upstream, to the audit stage, before there is anything to fight about.

How this compares internationally

If the concept sounds familiar, it should. In the United States, the IRS has long been able to sign a “closing agreement” that settles a taxpayer's position once and for all, and reopened only where there has been fraud or deliberate concealment. 

In the United Kingdom, HMRC resolves a large share of its tax enquiries by negotiated settlement under a published strategy, and a settled dispute carries the same finality as a tribunal ruling. 

South Africa has gone furthest, writing into law when the South African Revenue Service (SARS) may and may not settle, how the process must run, and requiring every settlement to be recorded and reported on.

For groups with operations across several of these jurisdictions, Mauritius adopting a comparable mechanism means that the tax environment here is converging with what they already know from more mature administrations.

The upside – and the fine print

The advantages are obvious. A compliance agreement offers certainty and closure without the upfront 10 per cent, without years of proceedings, and with penalties potentially waived in full. For a business managing audit exposure across multiple years – or reporting to a head office or investors who want tax risk quantified and closed – the ability to ring-fence an issue by agreement, with finality guaranteed by statute, is a valuable tool. It should also ease pressure on the young Revenue Tribunal by keeping resolvable cases out of litigation.

Three points of caution belong in every boardroom discussion. First, the waiver of appeal rights is absolute for whatever the agreement covers, so the scope needs to be drafted with precision. A loosely worded agreement could concede issues you never intended to give up. 

Secondly, finality is not symmetrical. The MRA can reopen on grounds noticeably wider than the American fraud standard, while the taxpayer has no equivalent exit. The full-disclosure declaration therefore deserves the same rigour you would apply to a warranty in a share purchase agreement. 

Thirdly, unlike South Africa, the Bill provides no register or oversight of settlements, so consistency between taxpayers will rest on MRA administrative practice. It remains to be seen whether guidelines on when agreements will be offered, and on what terms, will follow.

What happens next

The Bill was presented for its first reading in the National Assembly on 28 July 2026, with debates taking place over two days and the vote and adoption expected after that. 

Notably, clause 10 is not among the provisions given a deferred commencement date under the Bill, meaning the compliance agreement mechanism is expected to be available shortly after enactment – realistically within the next few weeks. 

Businesses currently under audit, or in discussions with the MRA ahead of an assessment or a determination of objection, may find this option on the table sooner than anticipated. Whether an agreement is advantageous in any given case will turn entirely on its terms: the scope of the matters covered, the disclosure made, and the payment and penalty position negotiated.

Speak to the experts before you sign

A compliance agreement is a one-way door. Once signed, your objection and appeal rights on the matters covered are gone. Whether you are under audit, weighing an objection, or deciding if early settlement beats litigation, the terms you agree on – scope, disclosure, payment and penalties – will determine whether the new regime works for or against you. 

Submitted by Boolell Advisory Mauritius

This article is a general commentary on the Finance Bill 2026 as introduced on 24 July 2026 and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Provisions may change before enactment