Author: Louis Botha and Heinrich Louw. Since the first version of the Draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, 2016 (First Draft TLAB) and the Explanatory Memorandum thereto (Memorandum) were released on 8 July 2016, the proposed amendments applicable to trusts and employee share schemes received most of the attention. However, another proposed amendment with potentially far-reaching consequences that has received little attention since the release of the First Draft TLAB is one which could lead to a taxpayer paying tax at one rate today and another rate tomorrow, as and when the Minister of Finance (Minister) says so.
Author: Louis Botha. An efficient advertising campaign can often be the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful business venture. When advertising the price of a product, however, businesses must be mindful of the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (VAT Act). This issue recently came up in the matter of Security Outfitters Safety Gear/L Munian/2016-4420F, a ruling handed down by the Directorate of the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA Directorate) on 18 November 2016 (Ruling).
From time to time, our courts are called upon to remind public officials that compliance with the requirements of provisions in legislation is necessary to enable them to enforce the powers entrusted to them. The requirements are in place to enable the public to understand the reasons for the administrative action and to determine whether the action is compliant with the law.
Author: Petr Erasmus (Director at Cleffe Dekker Hofmeyr). South African Revenue Service (SARS): Customs (Customs) sets off amounts owed to Customs against amounts refundable to clients. Section 76C of the Customs and Excise Act, No 91 of 1964 (Act) provides for set-off as follows: “Set-off of refund against amounts owing – Where any refund of duty is in terms of this Act due to any person who has failed to pay any amount of tax,
Author: Mareli Treurnicht (Senior Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). On 29 April 2016 the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) handed down judgment in an application brought by Julius Malema (Applicant) against the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS). The matter concerned a compromise agreement concluded between them in terms of s205 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA).
Author: Sduduzo Mhlongo (ENSAfrica candidate attorney). The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has introduced a new Tax Compliance Status System (“TCS”) from 18 April 2016 in an effort to improve compliance and to make it easier for taxpayers to manage their tax affairs. The Tax Compliance Status System is a holistic view of the tax compliance level across all registered tax types. The new system makes it stress-free for taxpayers to obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate (“TCC”) and allows taxpayers to obtain a Tax Compliance Status PIN which can be used by authorised third parties to verify the taxpayer’s compliance status online via SARS eFiling. There are 2 steps in the process of obtaining a TCS:
The Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (the VAT Act) requires VAT to be levied by a vendor on the supply of goods or services in the course or furtherance of an enterprise carried on by the vendor. A vendor is any person who is or is required to be registered in terms of the VAT Act. The fact that a vendor includes any person that is required to be registered makes it clear that a person’s liability for VAT is not dependent on whether the person is in fact registered as a vendor but rather whether the person is required to be registered as a vendor. The VAT Act requires registration as a vendor on either a prospective or retrospective basis. On a prospective basis, a person would be required to register as a vendor on the first day of the month in which the total value of Read More …
As a basic principle, under section 102(1) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (the TAA), the onus of proof that an amount is not taxable or that an amount is deductible, rests on the taxpayer, whereas under section 102(2) of the TAA, the onus of proof pertaining to the facts upon which an understatement penalty is imposed, is upon the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Too often, upon the conclusion of investigations or reviews, SARS threatens exorbitant understatement penalties for seemingly innocuous and easily resolvable queries. A good example is the classic turnover/expenditure reconciliation process which could produce, in certain instances, horrendous results for a taxpayer where the calculations are devoid of commercial logic.
On 1 March 2016, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued Binding Private Ruling 225 (Ruling), dealing with the dividends tax consequences for a non-resident issuer of hybrid debt instruments. By way of background, according to the Explanatory Memorandum on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, 2004 (Explanatory Memorandum) s8F of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) was introduced to draw a distinction between debt and equity for tax purposes. The section was further introduced to limit the deductibility of interest by persons other than natural persons in respect of hybrid debt instruments which are debt in legal form, but have sufficient equity features to place them clearly at the equity end of the debt/equity spectrum.
Author: Kyle Mandy (PwC). In order to prevent the five year rule from being abused, there are certain exceptions. Section 99 of the Tax Administration Act regulates the prescription of tax periods. The most important circumstances in which SARS is barred from raising further assessments in relation to a tax period are those relating to the passing of time. As a general rule, SARS is time-barred from raising an assessment in relation to a tax period as follows: