SARS prescription only starts once tax return has been submitted

Author: Eric Madumo, a Candidate Attorney and Joon Chong, a Partner at Webber Wentzel. In the recent case of CSARS v Char Trade, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) that prescription begins to run against CSARS when a return for secondary tax on companies (STC) is submitted to SARS by a taxpayer. In the Char Trade case, a return for STC had not been submitted by the taxpayer. Due to this, prescription had not begun to run against CSARS. The result of this is that CSARS was able to make an assessment in 2012 of the taxpayer’s liability amounting to ZAR 1,812,609 for the 2007 cycle.

Urgent reinstatement of tax compliance status granted

Author: Joon Chong, Tax Partner at Webber Wentzel. For certain taxpayers, a tax clearance certificate is of utmost importance in ensuring that it is able to receive payment and to tender for new services. In the recent Gauteng High Court decision (Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (2999/18)), the taxpayer applied for urgent interdictory relief for reinstatement of its tax compliance status in order to be able to generate a tax clearance certificate pending determination of review proceedings which it had instituted against CSARS.

The capital v revenue question in the context of government grants: The SCA decides in favour of the motor manufacturing industry

Author: Louis Botha and Louise Kotze. In the recent case of Volkswagen South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service 80 SATC 179, the age-old question of whether a receipt is capital or revenue in nature was addressed by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), in the context of government grants paid to motor vehicle manufacturers.

Ignorance is not bliss: A recent judgment about understatement penalties and a caution to taxpayers

Author: Louis Botha and Louise Kotze (Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr)In the recent matter of Mr A & XYZ CC v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case Nos IT13725 & VAT1426, IT13727 & VAT1096), which involved four combined cases, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued assessments to Mr A and XYZ CC (Taxpayers) relating to income tax for the 2007 to 2012 years of assessment and Value-Added Tax (VAT) for the 2006 to 2013 periods.

Major new tax burden introduced

Author: David Warneke (Partner and head of Tax Technical at BDO South Africa). The Taxation Laws Amendment Act of 2017 (Act 17 of 2017) which was promulgated on 18 December 2017 contains provisions, namely section 22B of the principal Income Tax Act and paragraph 43A of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, that will result in a significant compliance burden for companies, even in cases in which they do not result in additional taxation. The provisions deal with disposals of shares in a company (say A) that are held by another company (say B) in circumstances in which B held a significant portion of the equity shares (which the Amendment Act defines as a qualifying interest) in A at any time within the 18 months preceding the disposal. Section 22B applies in situations in which the shares that are the subject of the provision are held as trading Read More …

A win against SARS: late delivery of SARSs rule 31 Statement

Author: Mareli Treurnicht (Director at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). On 17 October 2017 the Tax Court (Western Cape Division: Cape Town) delivered judgment in the matter between S Company v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) under case number IT0122/2017. The judgment was handed down by Judge Cloete. This judgment is of great interest to any taxpayers currently involved in prolonged disputes with SARS, in particular where there are delays on the part of SARS.

No trade, no deduction a judgment about s11(a) of the Income Tax Act

Author: Louis Botha Tax (Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). On 20 April 2017, the Tax Court handed down its decision in X Group (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No: 13671) (as yet unreported). The case dealt with an amount of R90 million that X Group (Pty) Ltd (Taxpayer) had claimed as an expense or loss during the 2007 year of assessment, which deduction was disallowed by the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

Buying a house and paying transfer duty Separate rights equals separate obligations

Author: Louis Botha (Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). In our recent Tax and Exchange Control Alert of 13 October 2017, we referred to the number of tax court judgments that were recently published by SARS on its website. One of these cases is the matter of Ms A and Mr B v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No IT13974 & 13993) (as yet unreported), handed down by the Tax Court on 24 March 2017. In this case Ms A and Mr B (Taxpayers) appealed against SARSs decision regarding the transfer duty payable on a property which they purchased in terms of a written sale agreement.

A taxpayer’s unfortunate experience with SARS

Author: Heinrich Louw. On 21 October 2016 judgment was handed down by the High Court (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) in the matter of BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (as yet unreported). Briefly, the applicant (Applicant) was a vendor for purposes of Value-added Tax (VAT). The respondent, being the South African Revenue Service (SARS), had made a finding that the Applicant did not pay certain amounts of VAT due in respect of the October 2011 to February 2012 VAT periods.

When is an error a bona fide inadvertent error?

Authors:  Louis Botha, Heinrich Louw and Mark Morgan. On 4 November 2016 judgment was handed down by the Tax Court of South Africa (held in Cape Town) in the matter of ABC Holdings (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, Case number ITI13772. In this case the court had to consider whether the taxpayer, ABC Holdings (Pty) Ltd, was entitled to claim a deductible allowance of enhancement income of R9,354,458.00 received in terms of a contract for future expenditure in terms of s24C of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) for its 2011 year of assessment. The other issue that arose in this case and which is the focus of this article, was whether the South African Revenue Service (SARS) was correct to levy an understatement penalty in the circumstances.