TRUSTS ENTER THE SECTION 210 TAX PENALTY REGIME: MORE EXPANSION THAN REVOLUTION
There has been a great deal of noise about SARS’ trust penalties. On my reading, the real story is both simpler and more significant. SARS has not invented a new penalty. It has extended an old section 210 mechanism to a new class of taxpayer — trusts — at a time when revenue collection and […]
SARS’ Allocation Game – Interest After Payment
When a VAT dispute is settled and paid, can SARS still keep capital alive and charge interest? The Full Court in Inhlakanipho says: not so fast.
SARS’ “FINAL SAY” FANTASY ON SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT VS THE HIGH COURT
High Court in Ferrerìa v CSARS slams SARS’ refusal to suspend payment under section 164 of the TAA, holding that procedural fairness is no shield for irrational decisions. A landmark judgment reshaping SOP disputes and taxpayer rights in South Africa.
CONTRADICTORY VIEWS BY TAX COURT AND SARS: WHAT NOW?
When the Tax Court and SARS Disagree — What Should Taxpayers Do Next?
A recent Tax Court judgment found that certain raising fees qualify as “similar finance charges” under section 24J of the Income Tax Act — but SARS’ own Interpretation Note says they do not. This clash of interpretations creates real uncertainty for businesses deciding how to treat these fees for tax purposes. While the court’s decision supports deductibility, SARS’ official stance may lead to additional assessments and penalties — leaving taxpayers to ask: what now? Discover your options and how to navigate this interpretative tug-of-war.
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS: FROM EXCEPTION TO CASH-COW GRABBING NORM?
SARS can, in terms of section 95(1)(b) of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (TAA) raise an assessment based on an estimate if the taxpayer submits information to SARS that is either incorrect or inadequate. How SARS often prepare these estimates is by comparing deposits into the taxpayer’s bank account to turnover declared on the tax […]
TAXPAYERS BEWARE: SARS’ INDEFINITE EXTENSION
On 4 June 2025, the SCA ruled[1] that SARS is not required to request condonation if they remedy their default within the 15-day notice period contemplated in rule 56(1) of the Tax Court Rules (“the rules”) gazetted under section 103 of the Tax Administration Act 2011 (“the TAA”). What this means, practically speaking, is that […]
3 IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE TAX COURT
On 25 February 2025, the Johannesburg tax court handed down judgment in Taxpayer D v CSARS (IT35476) from which taxpayers can learn three very important lessons in the context of tax dispute resolution: Understand the concept of onus of proof and how to discharge that onus In this case, one of the taxpayer’s companies showed […]
TRUST RESOLUTIONS – TIMING MATTERS AND “THEY” KNOW IT
It seems it is/was a common practice amongst some trustees to pass resolutions for distributions to beneficiaries of the trust after the end of the financial year (typically around the time the financials are being finalised). It appears SARS has become aware of this and is holding the trust accountable for the income tax on […]
THE ARROW THAT MISSED THE MARK?
In a recent judgment handed down by the Johannesburg tax court in Taxpayer Arrow v CSARS (IT45776), the court had to determine, amongst various other things, (a) whether SARS could lift the veil of prescription and (b) whether SARS’ was correct in imposing understatement penalties under the circumstances. Briefly, the background to the case was […]
SARS INCORRECTLY ASSESSING A TAXPAYER
For a video explanation of this judgment see 3 parts below: Part 1 of 3 – Pear (Pty) Ltd vs CSARS (ITC146080) (Western Cape Tax Court) (5 December 2024) – Background Part 2 of 3 – Pear (Pty) Ltd vs CSARS (ITC146080) (Western Cape Tax Court) (5 December 2024) – The judgment on prescription Part […]