Mutual assistance provisions in double tax agreement between United Kingdom and South Africa

In the recent case of Ben Nevis (Holdings) Limited & Metlika Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) [2013] EWCA, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considered the interpretation of the mutual assistance provisions in the double tax agreement (DTA) between the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa (SA).

NWK judgment analysed

Judgment in the case of Mariana Bosch and Ian McClelland v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case no A94/2012) was handed down on 20 November 2012 by a full bench of the Western Cape High Court. The main judgment was written by Davis J (Baartman J concurring) and a separate judgment was written by Waglay J. The matter was on appeal from the Tax Court.

SARS: 15 years in jail a warning to rogue staff

SARS hopes a long jail sentence handed down to a former employee convicted of racketeering will deter staff from committing fraud. Yesterday (23 May 2013), the Cape Town High Court sentenced Edmund Fredericks and Aaron Carelse to 15 years in jail. Judge Daniel Dlodlo found that Fredericks, a former SARS employee, had been the key figure in several VAT and income tax scams. The two men were found guilty of fraud, forgery and “participating in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering”.

Recent case on judicial review of SARS’ actions in terms of PAJA

By Hanneke Farrand and Esther Geldenhuys, ENS – Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) increased their audit activity and focus on the collection of tax. Taxpayers often rely on protection in terms of administrative law and in particular, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No. 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”). An important rule under PAJA is that judicial review can only be used as a last resort after all other internal remedies have been exhausted and taxpayers therefore first have to make use of the objection and appeal procedures provided for in the Tax Administration Act, No. 28 of 2011. The case outlined below highlights the nature of some of SARS’ actions that may be brought under judicial review in terms of section 6 of PAJA and the circumstances under which such a review application might be dismissed.

Do your objections and appeals to Sars correctly

Do your objections and appeals to Sars correctly ..… or else it could become very costly. The taxpayer in H R Computek (Pty) Ltd v CSars (830/2011) [2012] ZASCA 178 learnt a painful and expensive lesson about the importance of adhering to the rules and provisions relating to objection and appeal.  In particular, this judgement reminds taxpayers, not for the first time, that the grounds of your objection are extremely important because you are stuck with them all the way through the judicial process.

MTN International (Mauritius) v CSARS – HC23203/11

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.