Author: Danielle Botha (DLA CLiff Dekker Hofmeyer) Section 98 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA) makes provision for the withdrawal of an assessment by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) in certain circumstances. Prior to its amendment, s98 allowed for the withdrawal of an assessment (despite no appeal having been noted or objection lodged), that was: a) issued to the incorrect taxpayer; b) issued in respect of the incorrect tax period; or c) issued as a result of an incorrect payment allocation.
Author: SARS Legal and Policy What is it? The institution of legal proceedings is a process whereby a taxpayer delivers court papers to SARS requiring the Commissioner for SARS to appear and defend a matter in the High Court. Prior notice before the institution of the proceedings is required in some instances, particular in matters involving the State. What does the tax and customs laws say? There are two different Acts in terms of which the institution of legal proceedings against the Commissioner for SARS is governed and although they have a similar purpose, the requirements are not identical.
Introduction The Supreme Court of Appeal delivered its judgement for the case between Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Mobile Telephone Networks Holdings (Pty) Ltd (966/12)  ZASCA 4 on the 7th of March 2014. This case concerns itself with the apportionment of audit fees incurred for a dual or mixed purpose in terms of section 11(a) read with section 23(f) and (g). Facts The group structure were as follows: the respondent,
Introduction The Western Cape High Court recently delivered its judgement in the application lodged by the first applicant being GW van der Merwe and others, for an order that a temporary interdict be issued preventing the second respondent, Piet JJ Marais, from commencing an inquiry authorised by Davis J, in terms of a court order made by virtue of the provisions of Part C of Chapter 5 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011, pending the final outcome of an application to declare the relevant provisions of the Tax Administration Act which authorises such enquiry unconstitutional and invalid. Further, the applicants requested an order to have the third applicant, Elle-Sarah Rossato, to allow them access to the court file in order to enable the aforesaid review application to be made.
The Pretoria Tax Court made an interesting ruling in ITC No 1866  75 SATC 268. Section 32(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 (the VAT Act) states that the following decisions of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) are subject to objection and appeal, namely: In terms of section 23(7) of the VAT Act notifying that person of SARS’s refusal to register that person in terms of the VAT Act. In terms of section 24(6) or (7) of the VAT Act notifying a person of SARS’s decision to cancel, or refusal to cancel his registration in terms of the VAT Act.
Any taxpayer who wishes to object to or appeal against an assessment issued by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) must be aware that their obligation to pay any tax under that assessment is not automatically suspended by virtue of the submission of the objection or appeal itself. Any taxpayer who wishes for an objection or appeal to first be concluded before paying the tax due under an assessment would have to lodge a separate request for suspension of payment of tax in terms of section 164 of the Tax Administration Act No. 28 of 2011 (the TAA).
Afro soul musician Ringo Madlingozi could face up to 15 years in jail or a hefty fine if he is found guilty of tax fraud and theft, said a tax lawyer on Sunday. Madlingozi allegedly hasn’t been paying his employees’ Pay As You Earn (PAYE) to SARS, but has been deducting it from their salaries since 1999. He reportedly owes SARS R1.5m in PAYE and R421693 in VAT. A charge sheet, which The New Age has seen, shows that the star has been hit with more than 40 charges of theft by SARS. He appeared in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday and is expected to be back in court on 9 January 2014.
The Pretoria Tax Court made an interesting ruling in Income Tax Case No 1866 75 SATC 268.Section 32(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, No 89 of 1991 (VAT Act) states that the following decisions of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) are subject to objection and appeal, namely:
Cash-strapped companies that are staring liquidation in the face sometimes resort to desperate measures to convince the court hearing an application for winding-up that they are not, in fact, insolvent and should not be wound up. A novel and imaginative method was adopted by the company, a VAT vendor, in ITC 1865 (2013) 75 SATC 250, though it is unlikely to become popular or to find its way into tax-planning manuals.
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.