Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Similar Posts
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…
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…
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…
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.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…
