Dr Reid v CSARS: Objections are technical, but technicality alone is not a strategy
In Dr Reid v CSARS, the High Court warns that SARS objections are technical legal instruments and that procedural technicality alone is rarely a sound tax strategy.
Understatement Penalties After 1 April 2026
Abstract The 1 April 2026 amendment to the understatement-penalty regime changes the sequence of the enquiry, but not necessarily its substance. Before the amendment, a taxpayer who established that the understatement resulted from a bona fide inadvertent error (BFIE) could keep the case outside the penalty regime altogether, with the result that the section 223 […]
BASF v CSARS: SARS cannot fix its case in Rule 31 (and the courts are finally saying so)
BASF v CSARS confirms that SARS cannot reinvent its assessment in Rule 31 pleadings. A key judgment reshaping appealability, pleading limits, and taxpayer rights in Tax Court disputes.
ERASMUS: RULE 31 IS NOT A SECOND CHANCE TO INVENT A NEW ASSESSMENT
Rule 31 is not a laundry service for bad assessments. The Erasmus judgment warns that SARS cannot swap its case after issuing an assessment.
ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE DO NOT MAKE A SARS ASSESSMENT STICK
I only recently had the opportunity to read a judgment of the High Court in a case where SARS sought to impose VAT and SDL on recovery of salaries of apparent employees of a taxpayer from the taxpayer’s clients.[1] The facts are briefly that the taxpayer entered into agreements with clients in terms of which […]
TAX DISPUTES: SARS IS FIGHTING BACK HARDER
Not too long ago, SARS disputes were considered part of the normal tax compliance process by many accountants, auditors and tax practitioners. Filing an objection by just completing the form and attaching a few documents was par for the course, so to speak. In the last few years, however, that has changed. It has become […]
THE WORD “OR” IN TAX COURT RULES: CAN WE JUST IGNORE IT?
One would think it is obvious that you cannot but, alas, it appears it is not that obvious. The context: rule 31(3) of the Tax Court rules as promulgated under section 103 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (“the rules”). It reads as follows: “SARS may include in the statement a new ground of assessment […]
A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR SARS: NOVATION, RULE 31, AND THE PERILS OF SHIFTING GROUNDS
Author: Jana de Clerk (Tax Attorney | Tax Manager) and Hopolang Mollo (Tax Consultant) The recent judgment in IT 25209 delivered by the Johannesburg Tax Court offers valuable insight into the procedural and substantive boundaries of Rule 31 of the rules promulgated under section 103 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“the Tax […]
HIGH COURT ACTION AGAINST SARS: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
In a judgment handed down by the High Court in December 2024[1], the court had to decide an application brought by a taxpayer to effectively force SARS pay out a refund which had not been assessed. It involved an ETI credit which the taxpayer failed to timeously claim in the first version of its EMP501. […]
CLEAR YOUR CACHE OR, POTENTIALLY, PAY SARS THE CASH?
Author: Nico Theron (CTA) SA and Hopolang Mollo (Tax Consultant) Can SARS take collection steps against taxpayers who are victims of fraud? Prevention is better than cure. Maybe, just maybe, that riveting animated training course sent through by Mark from IT on phishing and vigilance against official impersonation may have prevented all of this. Hindsight, […]