It was, in part, this question which lay behind the appointment of a tax review committee in South Africa on 17 July 2013. At a recent dialogue facilitated by professional services firm Deloitte, Judge Dennis Davis, the Chairman of the Davis Tax Committee, for the first time revealed some of the background to the committee’s work and progress to date. As National Leader for Taxation Services at Deloitte, Nazrien Kader pointed out, “it has been nearly two decades since the Katz Commission undertook such a review in South Africa and global and local developments since have brought the applicability of our tax system under the spotlight.”
An aggrieved taxpayer who wishes to institute legal proceedings against SARS in relation to some aspect of his tax affairs must be sure to raise his grievance in the proper forum. That forum may be either the Tax Court or the High Court.
Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth’s bid to have South Africa’s entire exchange control system declared unconstitutional has failed. The North Gauteng High Court on Thursday dismissed Shuttleworth’s application to strike down the whole of section 9 of the Currency and Exchange Act and all of the Exchange Control Regulations as unconstitutional.
An overview The recently promulgated Tax Administration Act, No. 28 of 2011 (TAA) contains provisions that grant some dramatically increased powers to the South African Revenue Service (Sars). Tax recovery on behalf of foreign governments Section 185 of the TAA contains the measures available to Sars to recover tax on behalf of foreign governments. Broadly defined, the provisions of section 185 provide that revenue authorities of a foreign country (with which South Africa has a tax treaty) can request Sars to assist in the collection of foreign taxes due by a person to that country.
Concern over lack of remedies when Sars oversteps. Despite constructive regulatory changes in the tax administration environment, there are concerns about the lack of cost effective remedies for taxpayers in cases where the South African Revenue Service (Sars) fails to comply with its obligations.
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND RAISING ASSESSMENTS By Heinrich Louw, Cliffe Dikker Hofmeyr On 31 January 2013, judgment was handed down in the North Gauteng High Court in the case of MTN International (Mauritius) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (as yet unreported, case no 23203/11). The facts were briefly as follows. The taxpayer was a Mauritian company, registered as a taxpayer with the South African Revenue Service (SARS), and a subsidiary of a South African holding company. The taxpayer acquired various interests, notably in Nigeria and the Middle East, through loans obtained from its South African holding company.