Ferreira v Commissioner for SARS

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

This judgment highlights the binding nature of tax settlement agreements, affirming that SARS must honour lawfully concluded agreements as final and enforceable. It reinforces certainty, fairness, and trust in tax dispute resolution by preventing SARS from deviating from agreed terms after compliance by the taxpayer.

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.

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.

VAT Ruling VR 014 (9 January 2026) approves the page-space and varied turnover-based apportionment methods under sections 17(1) and 41B of the VAT Act.

In SARS v Taxpayer 3C (VAT 12167, 2026), the Tax Court held that SARS must apply for condonation when filing a Rule 31 statement late, confirming that a taxpayer’s clear communication can constitute valid notice to proceed with an appeal and trigger SARS’s obligations under the Tax Court Rules.