Author: Louis Botha (Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). The imposition of understatement penalties in terms of Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TA Act) and the factors to consider when imposing such a penalty: An issue that our courts have not dealt with much. In this regard, the judgment of the Tax Court in XYZ CC v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No. 14055) (as yet unreported), handed down on 20 November 2017, sets out some helpful principles.
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.
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).
Author: Louis Botha. In Nondabula v Commissioner: SARS and Another (4062/2016)  ZAECMHC 21 (27 June 2017), heard by the Mthatha High Court, Nondabula (Taxpayer), brought an application to interdict the South African Revenue Service (SARS) from invoking the provisions of s179 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA) pending the final determination of the Taxpayers objection to an additional assessment of his income tax. Furthermore, the Taxpayer sought an order that SARS withdraw its third party notice, in terms of which SARS instructed Absa to withhold and pay over monies held in the Taxpayers bank account.
Author: Beric Croome. On 29 May 2017, Judge Fabricius delivered judgment in the Gauteng High Court in the case of Pienaar Brothers (Pty) Ltd vs Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and the Minister of Finance, in a case dealing with the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2007 (the Amending Act) which inserted section 44(9A) into the Income Tax Act, 1962 (the Act). The taxpayer sought an order declaring that section 34(2) of the Amending Act is inconsistent with the Constitution, and invalid to the extent that it provides that section 44 (9A) of the Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 21 February 2007 and to be applicable to any reduction or redemption of the share capital or share premium of a resultant in company, including the acquisition by that company of its shares in terms of section 85 of the Companies Act, on or after Read More …
Author: Louis Botha (Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). Currently, in terms of section 9 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA) a decision made by a South African Revenue Services (SARS) official and a notice to a specific person issued by SARS, excluding a decision given effect to in an assessment or notice of assessment is regarded as made by a SARS official, authorised to do so or duly issued by SARS, until proven to the contrary. Furthermore, s9 makes provision for such a decision to be withdrawn or amended by the SARS official, a SARS official to whom the SARS official reports or a senior SARS official, at the request of the relevant person.
Authors: Louis Botha and Nandipha Mzizi(Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). It seldom happens that the South African Revenue Service (SARS) is compelled to provide documents to a taxpayer, while SARS is conducting an audit. In Carte Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015)  ZAGPPHC 253 (26 May 2017), the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria had to decide whether SARS should be compelled to produce certain documents requested by the applicants (Taxpayers) in the context of a review application brought by the Taxpayers. The main proceedings in this matter involve a review application which the Taxpayers brought against SARS seeking to set aside the decision of SARS to audit them in terms of s40 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA).
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.
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.
When disputing a tax debt, especially one involving the complex issue of unlawful tax avoidance, taxpayers should always exercise great caution. This sentiment is echoed by the recent judgment in Dale v Aeronastic Properties Ltd (Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others Intervening) (9297/2016)  ZAWCHC 160 (25 October 2016). Although the court in this case was concerned with whether an order to place the respondent taxpayer, Aeronastic Properties Ltd (Aeronastic), under business rescue, its precarious financial situation was caused largely by an expensive tax debt. In the course of its judgment, the court made reference to the taxpayer’s dispute with the South African Revenue Service (SARS), which dispute is the subject of this article.