A VAT refund is an amount of VAT that is payable by SARS to a vendor. In terms of section 1 of the VAT Act No. 89 of 1991 (the VAT Act), a vendor means any person who is or is required to be registered under the VAT Act, provided that where the Commissioner has under section 23 or 50A determined the date from which a person is a vendor, that person shall be deemed to be a vendor from that date.
Category: VAT
SA Budget 2024/25 – Tax policy on VAT and amendments and clarifications
Amendments to schedule 2 part B for fruit and vegetables It is proposed that items 12 and 13 of part B of schedule 2 of the Value‐Added Tax (VAT) Act (1991) be amended to clarify that the zero‐rating of VAT does not apply to pre‐cut or prepared fruit or vegetables. Amendments to schedule 1 part 1 of the Customs and Excise Act (1964) may also be needed in order to align both the schedules.
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 …
Concept clarification: Zero-rated vs exempt supplies
Confused? Confusion is good. Its an excellent place to learn something new from. Henna Inam Although seemingly simple, the value-added tax (VAT) concept of zero-rated supplies vs exempt supplies is often confused and misused. The importance of distinguishing between these concepts is, however, crucial for purposes of determining the VAT liability of a vendor as well as a vendors entitlement to claim input tax deductions in respect of expenses incurred. The distinction between these concepts as well as the importance behind the distinction is unpacked below.
Court Case – VAT agency and principals
The terms agent and agency are not defined in the Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (VAT Act). The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has indicated in Interpretation Note 42 (IN 42) that it accepts that the common law relationship between the principal and the agent prescribes the value-added tax (VAT) consequences of this legal relationship. The general VAT rule is that where a person, acting as agent, supplies goods or services on behalf of a principal to a third party, the supply is deemed to be made by the principal and not the agent (section 54(1) of the VAT Act). Conversely, where a third-party supplier makes a supply to an agent acting on behalf of a principal, that supply is deemed to be made to the principal (section 54(2) of the VAT Act). In these instances, the principal and not the agent must account for VAT on the Read More …
VAT registrations: SARS announces more stringent requirements with immediate effect
An important objective and design principle of SARSs administrative platform is to balance the ease of VAT registration with the potential risk of abuse that this could give rise to: persons merely seeking to obtain a VAT number in order to claim fraudulent VAT refunds. In aMedia Releaseissued by SARS on 11 May 2023, it noted concern following a trend of suspicious VAT registrations during the month of April. In particular, SARS noted that its sophisticated risk system indicated that there was a significant increase in the number of VAT registrations during April. Upon further analysis by SARS it appears that a large number of such VAT registrations were, in their view, created with the intention of defrauding SARS.
SCA rules on the imposition of USP where a taxpayer relied on an opinion
The South African Revenue Service (SARS) may impose penalties on taxpayers who make errors in their tax returns, but relief is available under certain circumstances. Understatement penalties (USPs) are levied in terms of section 222(1) of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (TAA) and provide that in the event of an understatement by a taxpayer, the taxpayer must, in addition to the tax payable, pay a USP, unless it is the consequence of a bona fideinadvertent error. A provision in theTAAfurther states that SARS must remit a penalty imposed for a substantial understatement if it is satisfied that: the taxpayer was in possession of an opinion by an independent registered tax practitioner that was issued by no later than the date the relevant return was due; the opinion was based upon full disclosure of the specific facts and circumstances of the arrangement; and the opinion confirmed that the taxpayers position is Read More …
Another reminder that SARS bears the onus of proving understatement penalties
In the matter ofLance Dickson Construction CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, the High Court set aside the order of the Tax Court in favour of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and upheld an appeal by Lance Dickson Construction CC (Taxpayer) with costs. The Taxpayer, in its tax return for the 2017 year of assessment, did not declare any proceeds from the disposal of certain property to a related entity, Kwali Mark Construction CC (KMC), as it believed and as stated in the agreement of sale between the Taxpayer and KMC, that capital gains tax (CGT) would be paid by the Taxpayer when the property was on-sold by KMC to an unrelated third-party and the relevant proceeds were received by the Taxpayer. Because these conditions were not fulfilled in the 2017 year of assessment, the Taxpayer did not declare proceeds on the disposal of the property Read More …
VAT on imported services payable by non-registered VAT vendors and goods sold in execution – the who, what and how of declarations to SARS
Author: Varusha Moodaley. On 1 June 2020, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued an external guide titled Manage Declaration for Non-Registered VAT Vendors (SARS Guide). The SARS Guide provides guidance to non-vendor recipients of imported services and in instances where goods are sold in execution of a debt, on how to settle their VAT liabilities with SARS. On 1 June 2020, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued an external guide titled Manage Declaration for Non-Registered VAT Vendors (SARS Guide). The SARS Guide provides guidance to non-vendor recipients of imported services and in instances where goods are sold in execution of a debt, on how to settle their VAT liabilities with SARS. The VAT principles applicable to imported services and goods sold in execution of a debt are first briefly described below.
VAT apportionment v direct attribution: A (preliminary) win for the taxpayer
Author: Gerhard Badenhorst. The debate between taxpayers and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) as to what constitutes a fair and appropriate apportionment formula to determine the deductible value added tax (VAT) incurred on expenses where the taxpayer makes both taxable and exempt supplies, is ongoing. However, it is up to the taxpayer to determine whether an expense incurred is wholly attributable to making taxable supplies, in which case the total amount of VAT incurred is deductible. SARS cannot rule beforehand on whether an expense is directly attributable to taxable supplies, by virtue of a notice published in terms of section 80(2) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (GN No. 748 24 June 2016), known as the so-called no-rulings list.