With increasing economic globalisation, revenue authorities around the world continue to shift their focus to issues of transfer pricing. Broadly, this fits in with the global move to combat so-called profit shifting, a practice where multinational groups attempt to concentrate their profits in low-tax countries in which they operate. In a moment that many tax practitioners have eagerly awaited, the Tax Court finally passed down its first judgment dealing with transfer pricing in the case of ABD Limited v Commissioner, SARS (IT14302). Between 2009 and 2012, the taxpayer licensed its intellectual property to subsidiaries operating in various other countries (opcos) against payment by these opcos of a royalty. For all of these opcos, this royalty was charged at the same flat rate of 1%. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) took the view that this 1% royalty was, in fact, not arm’s length and should have been higher. However, the Read More …
Category: Court Cases
The VAT treatment of supplies made are you an agent and can you prove it?
In the recent case of KEN CC v CSARS, VAT2218 (VAT) [2023] ZATC CPT, the Tax Court (Cape Town) was tasked with deciding the dispute that had arisen between KEN CC (the vendor) and SARS concerning the vendors supply of services to foreign tour operators (FTOs) incorporated outside of South Africa. The vendor argued that it provided a single supply of tourism package assembly services to its non-resident FTO customers and that such services were zero-rated under section 11(2)(l) of the Value Added Tax Act, 1991 (VAT Act). This was on the basis that the FTO customers were not residents of South Africa and were not located in South Africa when the package assembly services were rendered. As part of its package assembly services, the vendor was appointed on behalf of the FTOs to contract with local third-party service providers for inter alia accommodation, guides, and greeting services. These local Read More …
A game changer for taxpayer confidentiality: The Constitutional Court decides in a narrow 5-4 split decision
While public interest litigation is a common occurrence in South Africa, it seldom involves the area of tax law. However, pursuant to the Constitutional Courts judgment in Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others [2023] ZACC 13, handed down on 30 May 2023, this might become a more regular occurrence and something the taxpayer and tax advisory community may see more of in future.
At it again: Capital v revenue
The capital versus revenue debate is as old as tax law itself. The benefits, advantages or consequences of an amount being considered capital or revenue in nature has motivated taxpayers and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) alike to characterise amounts as one or the other. More often than not, the task of distinguishing between the two has fallen to the courts, as it did once again in the case of A Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT45638) [2023] ZATC 13, where judgment was handed down on 19 July 2023 (IT 45638). At a glance In IT 45638 ZATC CPT (19 July 2023) the Tax Court had to once again address how to determine if expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. In this instance the Tax Court found that a new company established to export grapes to a European retail chain through the taxpayer was Read More …
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Medtronic International Trading S.A.R.L (Case no 456/2021) [2023] ZASCA 20 (03 March 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed an appeal from the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. This appeal concerned itself with whether certain provisions of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) precluded remission of interest levied on late payment of value added tax (VAT), as provided for in the Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (VAT Act).
Skirting the Tax Court is not a quick-fix solution to a tax dispute
The road to finalising a dispute against an additional assessment or a SARS decision can be a “protracted slog” to the Tax Court. Recent case law suggests that relief in the High Court is only available in exceptional circumstances. The TAA process Chapter 9 of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) and the dispute resolution rules (Rules) provide for aggrieved taxpayers to dispute assessments and SARS decisions using the objection and appeal procedures.
Voluntary disclosure programme: The High Court interprets the provisions of the Tax Administration Act
Author: Louis Botha. The Voluntary Disclosure Programme (VDP), contained in Part B of Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA), was introduced to encourage non-compliant taxpayers to come forward, and provide an account of their non-compliance with a view to regularizing their tax affairs. A valid disclosure and conclusion of a voluntary disclosure agreement with SARS shields the taxpayer from criminal prosecution and provides relief from the non-compliance and understatement penalties which would ordinarily have been imposed. Section 226(1) of the TAA provides that voluntary disclosure relief may be applied for by a person acting in their personal, representative, withholding or other capacity. Section 227 prescribes the requirements for a valid disclosure, and it must:
Tax Appeal Tribunal ruling: Commissioner Generals discretion must be exercised judiciously
Authors: Celia Becker and Phillip Karugaba. The recent ruling of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) in the case of Century Bottling Company v Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), has brought the discretion of the Commissioner General of the URA sharply in focus. It is absolutely necessary and indeed important that in the exercise of their functions, public authorities exercise discretion. It is equally important that such discretion is properly exercised taking into account only the relevant considerations and for the proper reasons. The citizen has recourse to court to check the excesses of executive discretion. A public official is therefore not like the cultural leader kamala byona (he who finishes all matters). The formers discretion is very much controlled by law and by the courts.
Inextricably linked contracts? The Constitutional Court has the final say regarding section 24C of the Income Tax Act
Author: Aubrey Mazibuko and Louis Botha. On 21 July 2020, the Constitutional Court (CC) handed down judgment in Big G Restaurants (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service [2020] ZACC 16, which concerned section 24C of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (Act). At issue before the CC was whether future expenditure incurred in terms of a franchise agreement was deductible against income derived by the taxpayer, Big G Restaurants (Pty) Ltd (Big G) from operating its franchise business.
High Court sets aside notice by SARS to debit a taxpayers bank account
Authors: Heinrich Louw and Ndzalama Dumisa. In the recent case of SIP Project Managers (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case Number 11521/2020) (as yet unreported), the High Court set aside a notice by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) to a bank to debit a taxpayers bank account in terms of section 179 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA), and ordered SARS to repay the amount to the taxpayer.