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).
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.
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:
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.
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  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.
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.
Author: Roxanne Webster and Merrick Steenkamp. Gone are the days of receiving physical invoices. Most, if not all, invoices are now sent electronically. While this may be faster and seemingly more secure, there are still some risks involved. What happens if either the creditors or the debtors email accounts are hacked? What if the banking details on the invoice are changed without either partys knowledge and payment is made? Who is liable in such a scenario?
Author: Louis Botha. On 17 September 2019, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) released a Media Statement regarding the steps that SARS has taken in implementing the Nugent Commission (Commission) recommendations (Media Statement).
Authors: Emil Brincker and Louise Kotze. In a litigious context, the doctrine of legal professional privilege provides that communications between an attorney and a client are protected from disclosure in litigious proceedings. The protection afforded to a litigant in terms of this doctrine is aimed at encouraging and protecting the full and honest disclosure of information by clients to their legal advisors when seeking legal advice, which is necessary for the proper functioning of the South African adversarial system of litigation.
Authors: Louise Kotze and Louis Botha. In the recent judgment of Purlish Holdings (Proprietary) Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (76/18)  ZASCA 04, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to pronounce on the South African Revenue Services (SARS) entitlement to impose understatement penalties on Purlish Holdings (Proprietary) Limited (Taxpayer) and the quantum thereof.