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.
Tag: objections
Courts reel in SARS ‘fishing expeditions’ against taxpayers
Source: Evan Pickworth (BusinessDay live) OPEN-ended fishing expeditions by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) could come under attack as court actions begin to mushroom against tax assessments in South Africa, a tax conference heard on Wednesday.
Does Sars invade your privacy?
Behind the Taxman’s controversial warrantless search powers. Finding a balance between taxpayers’ rights and Sars’s powers to search premises can prove difficult, especially in cases where a tax official does not have a warrant. The “warrantless search and seizure”, a controversial new power introduced in the Tax Administration Act that came into effect last year, has been debated at length since it was first proposed a couple of years ago. The criticism against the provision stems from fears that a warrantless search could infringe certain constitutional rights of taxpayers such as taxpayers’ right to privacy or fair administrative action.
Safeguard Against Penalties With A Tax Opinion
South African Revenue Services (SARS) may raise understatement penalties if prejudice has been caused to them or the fiscus. Penalties can be imposed at 25% or 50% in the case of a ‘substantial understatement’. There are however circumstances when, notwithstanding that the taxpayer has erred, SARS will remit the penalty if the taxpayer is in possession of an opinion by a registered tax practitioner.
Do you know your rights as a taxpayer?
Concern over lack of remedies when Sars oversteps. Despite constructive regulatory changes in the tax administration environment, there are concerns about the lack of cost effective remedies for taxpayers in cases where the South African Revenue Service (Sars) fails to comply with its obligations.
Sars punished Mpisane for honesty
Durban businesswoman was punished for making a voluntary disclosure to the SA Revenue Service.
Double taxation a headache for SA corporates
By Ingé Lamprecht African countries are turning to tax collection. JOHANNESBURG – After a number of years where some African countries have generally focused on attracting investment, developing infrastructure and creating jobs, a number of countries are now turning their attention to tax collection in an effort to supplement their state coffers.
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.
Commissioner's discretion to levy or remit penalties under the Tax Administration Act
By Beric Croome and Elsabe Strydom , ENS – Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs The Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“TAA”) which came into effect on 1 October 2012 (bar a few specific sections) introduced two types of penalties, namely administrative non-compliance penalties and understatement penalties. This article considers whether the Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has any discretion to levy the above mentioned penalties as compared to any discretion provided for in the repealed penalty provisions as contained in the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (“ITA”). The taxpayer’s right to have the penalties remitted as per the TAA compared to the taxpayer’s right to remittance in terms of the ITA is also considered.
SARS : Basic Guide to Income Tax for PBO and Donations deductions
In South Africa, an organisation that has a non-profit motive or is established or registered as a non-profit organisation does not automatically qualify for preferential tax treatment. An organisation will only enjoy preferential tax treatment after it has applied for and been granted approval as a Public Benefit Organisation (PBO).