Objections

Many accounting/auditing firms seem to have noticed the increase by SARS in audits and additional assessments, especially following the repeal by SARS of the IT14SD. But what is more, is that the quality of SARS’ audits and the quality of their additional assessments seems to be improving. Given the increase in the quality of their…

Some time ago we published an article titled: UNDERSTATEMENT PENALTIES: SARS’ BURDEN OF PROOF IS IRRELEVANT? – Unicus Tax Specialists SA in which we comment on the judgment of the tax court in LDC Taxpayer v CSARS (Case No: IT2488) (18 June 2021) (“the Tax Court Case”). In that article, we questioned how on earth…

We recently published an article titled: “Tax Penalties: Good News for Taxpayers” that centered around the judgment in CSARS v The Thistle Trust (516/2021) [2022] ZASCA 153 (7 November 2022) (“the Thistle Trust case”). In the Thistle Trust case, the court held that the taxpayer’s reliance on a professional opinion exempted, by manner of speaking, …

Tax Penalties Good News for Tax Payers  The Tax Administration Act, 28 of 2011 (“the TAA”) imposes an obligation on SARS to impose a penalty called an “understatement penalty” in the event that a taxpayer makes an understatement (for example by making an incorrect statement in a tax return).  However, when, for example, an incorrect…

The SCA[1] recently upheld an appeal by SARS against a judgment of the tax court that Unicus Tax previously labelled: a curious tax court judgment. It turns out, taxpayers can’t rely on rule 42 of the tax court rules to circumvent provisions of the TAA… The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The…

Ping Pong Tax Court vs High Court In a recent matter heard in the High Court[1], the taxpayer tried to hold SARS accountable for what it alleged was effectively a breach by SARS of its right to administrative action that is lawful reasonable and procedurally fair (the procedural issue). It turned out, however, that the…

PART 1 OF 4: SETTING THE SCENE The niches of tax procedural law require careful consideration before launching any form of challenge against SARS. Get the procedure wrong and the taxpayer’s case is likely to suffer catastrophic and perhaps even fatal consequences, let alone spilled cost and time. In this 4-part series, we will explore…

PART 2 OF 4: THE 2009 OBJECTION AND REDUCED ASSESSMENT REQUESTS As evident from part 1 of this series of articles, the history of the dispute between the taxpayer and SARS in the case of L’Avenir Wine Estate (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS (16112/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 28 (11 March 2022) shows that several procedures were unsuccessfully…

PART 3 OF 4: THE 2018 DISPUTE AND 2010 REDUCED ASSESSMENT REQUEST As evident from part 1 of this series of articles, the history of the dispute between the taxpayer and SARS in the case of L’Avenir Wine Estate (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS (16112/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 28 (11 March 2022) shows that several procedures were…

PART 4 OF 4: THE HIGH COURT APPLICATION As evident from part 1 of this series of articles, the history of the dispute between the taxpayer and SARS in the case of L’Avenir Wine Estate (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS (16112/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 28 (11 March 2022) shows that several procedures were unsuccessfully followed by the…