Authors: Heinrich Louw and Ndzalama Dumisa. In the recent case of SIP Project Managers (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case Number 11521/2020) (as yet unreported), the High Court set aside a notice by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) to a bank to debit a taxpayers bank account in terms of section 179 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA), and ordered SARS to repay the amount to the taxpayer.
Authors: Aubrey Mazibuko, Emil Brincker and Louis Botha. There is little doubt that the national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 health crisis has had a negative financial impact on individuals and business alike. In our Tax & Exchange Control Alert of 28 May 2020, we discussed some of the practical day-to-day tax consequences that the lockdown may have on businesses. In this alert we take a look at the effect that the national lockdown may have on expenditure or losses incurred by individuals and businesses. We also the look at the tax consequences that may arise as a result of employers providing their employees with personal protective equipment. To this end we will consider two scenarios.
Author: Esther van Schalkwyk , Tax Manager at BDO. While eFiling has played a crucial role in managing ones tax affairs remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, there are some discrepancies in the way SARS is handling disputes to tax assessments. In some instances, taxpayers whose objections are not late are prompted on eFiling to motivate why their late objection should be condoned. Whats more worrying is that we have seen such objections being disallowed for being late (despite a senior SARS official presumably having applied his/her mind). Such unlawful disallowances by SARS seem to occur mainly where taxpayers have exercised their right to request reasons for the assessment before objecting.
Author: Louis Botha. On 17 September 2019, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) released a Media Statement regarding the steps that SARS has taken in implementing the Nugent Commission (Commission) recommendations (Media Statement).
Authors: Jessica Osmond and Louis Botha. In terms of South African tax law, where a taxpayer wishes to object or appeal against an assessment issued by or decision made by the South African Revenue Service (SARS), it must do so in the manner prescribed in the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA). Where a dispute is not resolved pursuant to an objection lodged by a taxpayer, the taxpayer can appeal the decision to the Tax Court.
The concept of reasonable period within the ambit of the tax legislation seems to be topical one day and then the next loses impetus for whatever reason without ever settling the issue. This question of time is exceptionally important and relevant for the sections in the tax legislation which deal with the situation where SARS has requested a taxpayer to render to it relevant material as part of SARS powers of information gathering.
By Yashika Govind, Senior Associate and Nirvasha Singh, Partner at Webber Wentzel. The obligation of SARS to collect tax and taxpayers’ rights are often at odds with each other. In an attempt to address this issue, the Budget 2018 (Budget) proposes to reconcile the taxpayers’ constitutional rights with SARS’ constitutional obligations by including a provision in the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) stipulating that SARS must inform the taxpayer at commencement of the audit when the information submitted in a tax return will be audited. The provision is intended to cover desk audits which involve inspection or enquiries, without necessarily meeting with the taxpayer or third parties in person.
Ben Strauss (Director at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). From time to time, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issues interpretation notes. According to the SARS website (www.sars.gov.za), interpretation notes are intended to provide guidelines to stakeholders (both internal and external) on the interpretation and application of the provisions of the legislation administered by the Commissioner.
Author: Louis Botha (Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). In recent times, taxpayers have often been unsuccessful in their disputes with the South African Revenue Service (SARS), especially where the dispute involved the interpretation or application of the substantive provisions of tax legislation. However, where disputes have involved compliance with the procedural requirements of tax legislation, taxpayers have generally had greater success. The judgment in Mr A v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No. IT13726) (as yet unreported), falls into the second category and is the subject of this article.
Author: Louis Botha (Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). The imposition of understatement penalties in terms of Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TA Act) and the factors to consider when imposing such a penalty: An issue that our courts have not dealt with much. In this regard, the judgment of the Tax Court in XYZ CC v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No. 14055) (as yet unreported), handed down on 20 November 2017, sets out some helpful principles.