Unicus Tax Update

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.