Meiring Citrus: Correct Result, Questionable Route?
The Meiring Citrus High Court judgment examines whether structured self-insurance arrangements qualify as deductible insurance premiums under section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that a Santam “structured insurance” product was, in substance, an investment rather than a genuine insurance contract, disallowing the claimed R9.6 million deduction.
The judgment also provides significant guidance on the interpretation of insurance contracts, the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure, the application of section 99 of the Tax Administration Act to prescription, material non-disclosure and misrepresentation, and the imposition of understatement penalties, making it a landmark decision for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and businesses using alternative risk-financing structures.
Company AF v CSARS – GAAR, Paragraph 43A and the Future of Dividend-Stripping Litigation
This training session examines the Company AF judgment and its impact on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), paragraph 43A, the choice principle, dividend-stripping arrangements, SARS’s litigation powers, and penalty disputes. Learn how the decision reshapes tax planning, procedural strategy, and the interpretation of anti-avoidance provisions in South African tax law.
Lueven Metals – The limits of interpretation in tax law
This training session unpacks the Constitutional Court’s decision in Lueven Metals and its significance for tax interpretation. It explains why text, context and purpose must be read together, but cannot be used to stretch statutory wording beyond what it can reasonably bear. The session highlights the VAT zero-rating dispute, SARS’ successful argument, and the broader lesson that commercially attractive interpretations must still be grounded in the actual words of the tax provision.
VAT Consequences of Unlawful Transactions
Explore the VAT consequences of unlawful and subsequently invalidated transactions through a detailed analysis of the Ndyamara / Swifambo judgment.
This training examines the interaction between VAT liability, illegality, section 26 of the Insolvency Act, credit-note mechanisms under section 21 of the VAT Act, and key principles from MP Finance and Respublica.
Learn why a contract’s later invalidity does not necessarily erase previously triggered VAT obligations, how courts distinguish between original tax events and adjustment events, and when credit notes may provide a more effective remedy than insolvency-law recovery claims.
Key Changes in SARS’ VDP Guide Issue 2
Explore the key changes in SARS’ VDP Guide Issue 2, including eligibility, audit timing, voluntariness, penalties, cross-tax disclosure risks, rejection decisions and the finality of VDP agreements.
TAXPAYER EPP VS CSARS
In this practical training session, we unpack Tax Court judgment IT 24852 (Taxpayer EPP v SARS), where a taxpayer sought to deduct R38.8 million after customs and excise refund claims became time-barred. Explore the critical distinction between expenditure and loss under section 11(a), the timing of deductions, the impact of prescribed refund claims, understatement penalties, interest, and potential post-judgment remedies through reduced assessments and prescription exceptions under the Tax Administration Act
Binding Private Ruling 428
Binding Private Ruling 428 examines the income tax consequences of a Delayed Contribution Equity Investment Structure (DCEIS), confirming that phased share subscription proceeds constitute contributed tax capital rather than gross income.
The ruling also clarifies the interaction between sections 11D and 8(4)(a), confirming that qualifying R&D expenditure remains deductible without triggering recoupment consequences under the Income Tax Act.
Chapter 15 penalties and holding SARS Accountable
This discussion examines the critical distinction between objecting to a SARS penalty assessment and requesting remittance under the South African Tax Administration Act.
It unpacks the interaction between sections 104, 215, 220, and 224, highlighting why taxpayers may first need to seek remittance before pursuing objection and appeal remedies and explores the procedural and evidentiary consequences of each route, particularly the shifting onus of proof in understatement penalty disputes and administrative penalties before SARS and the Tax Court.
Absa and Another v CSARS [2026] ZACC 15
A comprehensive analysis of Absa and Another v CSARS, examining SARS’s application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) to complex preference share funding structures.
Taxpayer Bank Limited v SARS (VAT 32666)
This Tax Court VAT Section 21 Judgment examines the VAT treatment of financial services, focusing on whether certain banking activities qualify as exempt supplies.
The case highlights the interpretation of “financial services” under VAT legislation and clarifies the boundaries between taxable and exempt transactions, offering key insights into compliance, input tax claims, and structuring within the banking sector.