Judgment No. 23/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 145/15 year. He submitted, however, that in the instant case, the assessment was properly made in 2010 which is the tax year in which the expenditure was incurred. [8] At page 6 of its judgment the court a quo, in arriving at its conclusion that the exercise constituted a retrenchment in terms of the Labour Act said: “The onus to show on a balance of probabilities that the scheme was not a retrenchment exercise fell on the appellant. The discharge of the onus was complicated by the sole witness called by the appellant on this aspect. He conceded under cross examination that the scheme constituted a retrenchment exercise. His attempt to correct the picture in re-examination failed to paper the cracks. His prevarication on the point did not paint him as a credible witness in that respect only. The documentation emanating from the appellant is replete with reference to retrenchment exercise, retrenchment costs and retrenchment expenses”. [9] As it was submitted on behalf of the respondent, the appellant itself referred to the exercise as a retrenchment. In his heads of argument before this Court, Mr de Bourbon explained those references away by describing them as ‘inappropriate’. Para 2 of the appellant’s heads of argument reads: “At the end of November 2009, the appellant resolved to undertake what it termed a voluntary retrenchment exercise (record 55) ...” And at Para 4: “For the purposes of its accounts, the appellant claimed the whole costs of the voluntary separation scheme (often using the inappropriate term retrenchment) as a cost of its business in the tax year ending 31 December 2009.” (My emphasis). [10] It is common cause that the appellant submitted, for approval by the Retrenchment Board, a list of the employees affected by the exercise. Such a procedure is necessary only where employees are being retrenched 4. In four letters dated between 12 January and 4 Labour Act s12C 4