Lutzkie v CSARS

Supreme Court of Appeal dismisses SARS’s appeal in CSARS v Erasmus, holding that SARS could not use a rule 31 statement to revise the factual basis and remedy of a GAAR assessment after issuing the assessment.

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.

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.

Binding Private Ruling 424 examines whether interest on a loan used to redeem preference shares and settle related dividends is deductible under section 24J of the Income Tax Act.

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

BASF South Africa (Pty) Ltd v CSARS confirms that SARS may not amend a Rule 31 statement to introduce a new legal or factual case, while a taxpayer may raise fresh Rule 32 appeal grounds where they relate to the same disputed assessment amount already objected to.