Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Similar Posts
TAXPAYERS BEWARE: SARS’ INDEFINITE EXTENSION
On 4 June 2025, the SCA ruled[1] that SARS is not required to request condonation if they remedy their default within the 15-day notice period contemplated in rule 56(1) of the Tax Court Rules (“the rules”) gazetted under section 103 of the Tax Administration Act 2011 (“the TAA”). What this means, practically speaking, is that…
3 IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE TAX COURT
On 25 February 2025, the Johannesburg tax court handed down judgment in Taxpayer D v CSARS (IT35476) from which taxpayers can learn three very important lessons in the context of tax dispute resolution: Understand the concept of onus of proof and how to discharge that onus In this case, one of the taxpayer’s companies showed…
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.SARS’ Allocation Game – Interest After Payment
When a VAT dispute is settled and paid, can SARS still keep capital alive and charge interest? The Full Court in Inhlakanipho says: not so fast.
