Case: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Bullion Star (Pty) Ltd [2026] ZASCA 76 Court: Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa Case number: 894/2024 Citation: [2026] ZASCA 76 Judgment date: 22 May 2026 Majority judgment: Hughes JA, with Molefe and Koen JJA concurring Dissenting judgment: Opperman AJA, with Nuku AJA concurring Tax: Tax Administration / Value-Added Tax Legislation: Sections 59, 60 and 66 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 Issue: Whether an overbroad SARS search-and-seizure warrant should have been set aside in its entirety, whether the excessive portions could be severed after execution of the warrant, and whether SARS could continue using information seized under the unlawful warrant. 1. Overview The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Bullion Star (Pty) Ltd is an important judgment on the limits of SARS’s search-and-seizure powers under the Tax Administration Act. Read More …
Category: Court Cases
Constitutional Court delivers landmark ruling on South Africas GAAR Absa Bank Ltd and Another v CSARS
Case: Absa Bank Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa Case number: CCT 72/24 Citation: [2026] ZACC 15 Judgment date: 22 April 2026 Majority judgment: Majiedt J Dissenting judgment: Rogers J Tax: Income Tax Legislation: Sections 80A to 80L of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 Issue: Application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), including what constitutes an impermissible avoidance arrangement, who qualifies as a party to such an arrangement, and whether the taxpayer assessed must personally have obtained the tax benefit. 1. Overview The Constitutional Court’s decision in Absa Bank Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service is one of the most significant South African tax avoidance judgments in recent years. The case concerned the General Anti-Avoidance Rules contained in sections 80A to 80L of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. Importantly, the Read More …
Objecting to an additional assessment: When playing possum isnt an option
When a taxpayer is aggrieved by an assessment raised by the South African Revenue Service (SARS), the first step in disputing this is to file an objection under section 104 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA). In the recent case ofDr X and Dr X Inc v Commissioner, SARS(52/2023), the Tax Court dealt with the importance of complying with the requirements of Rule 7(2)(b) of the dispute resolution rules promulgated under section 103 of the TAA (Rules) in order for an objection to be valid. The Tax Court also clarified some of these prescribed requirements.
Rule 56, default cures and fairness: SCA confirms substance over procedure in tax disputes
In Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2025] ZASCA 77 (4 June 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered important guidance on the procedural interplay between Rule 56 of the Tax Court Rules (Rules) and the requirement for condonation under Rule 52. This ruling provides important clarity on how late filings should be approached, particularly where the defaulting party acts within the grace period afforded under Rule 56. Background Under Rule 31 of the Tax Court Rules, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) must file its statement of grounds of assessment and opposing appeal within 45 business days after receiving the taxpayers Rule 10 notice of appeal. If SARS fails to meet this deadline, the taxpayer may invoke Rule 56(1)(a), placing SARS on terms to remedy the default within 15 business days or face default judgment in terms of section 129(2) Read More …
Thistle Trust v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service CCT337/22
Case CCT 337/22 [2024] ZACC 19 Ordered Date: 08 February 2024 Judgement Date: 02 October 2024 Post JudgmentMedia Summary The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court. On 2 October 2024, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal and a conditional application for leave to cross-appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application concerned the applicability of the conduit principle to capital gains when distributed by multiple trusts in the same tax year in terms of the common law, section 25B and paragraph 80 of the Eighth Schedule of the Income Tax Act 28 of 1962. The conditional cross-appeal concerned whether the circumstances giving rise to the tax treatment by the Thistle Trust warranted the imposition of an understatement penalty.
Transfer pricing has finally washed up on South Africas shores
With increasing economic globalisation, revenue authorities around the world continue to shift their focus to issues of transfer pricing. Broadly, this fits in with the global move to combat so-called profit shifting, a practice where multinational groups attempt to concentrate their profits in low-tax countries in which they operate. In a moment that many tax practitioners have eagerly awaited, the Tax Court finally passed down its first judgment dealing with transfer pricing in the case of ABD Limited v Commissioner, SARS (IT14302). Between 2009 and 2012, the taxpayer licensed its intellectual property to subsidiaries operating in various other countries (opcos) against payment by these opcos of a royalty. For all of these opcos, this royalty was charged at the same flat rate of 1%. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) took the view that this 1% royalty was, in fact, not arm’s length and should have been higher. However, the Read More …
The VAT treatment of supplies made are you an agent and can you prove it?
In the recent case of KEN CC v CSARS, VAT2218 (VAT) [2023] ZATC CPT, the Tax Court (Cape Town) was tasked with deciding the dispute that had arisen between KEN CC (the vendor) and SARS concerning the vendors supply of services to foreign tour operators (FTOs) incorporated outside of South Africa. The vendor argued that it provided a single supply of tourism package assembly services to its non-resident FTO customers and that such services were zero-rated under section 11(2)(l) of the Value Added Tax Act, 1991 (VAT Act). This was on the basis that the FTO customers were not residents of South Africa and were not located in South Africa when the package assembly services were rendered. As part of its package assembly services, the vendor was appointed on behalf of the FTOs to contract with local third-party service providers for inter alia accommodation, guides, and greeting services. These local Read More …
A game changer for taxpayer confidentiality: The Constitutional Court decides in a narrow 5-4 split decision
While public interest litigation is a common occurrence in South Africa, it seldom involves the area of tax law. However, pursuant to the Constitutional Courts judgment in Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others [2023] ZACC 13, handed down on 30 May 2023, this might become a more regular occurrence and something the taxpayer and tax advisory community may see more of in future.
At it again: Capital v revenue
The capital versus revenue debate is as old as tax law itself. The benefits, advantages or consequences of an amount being considered capital or revenue in nature has motivated taxpayers and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) alike to characterise amounts as one or the other. More often than not, the task of distinguishing between the two has fallen to the courts, as it did once again in the case of A Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT45638) [2023] ZATC 13, where judgment was handed down on 19 July 2023 (IT 45638). At a glance In IT 45638 ZATC CPT (19 July 2023) the Tax Court had to once again address how to determine if expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. In this instance the Tax Court found that a new company established to export grapes to a European retail chain through the taxpayer was Read More …
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Medtronic International Trading S.A.R.L (Case no 456/2021) [2023] ZASCA 20 (03 March 2023)
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).