Mr A v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0059/2019) [2021] ZATC 20 (30 November 2021)

Mr A v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0059/2019) [2021] ZATC 20 (30 November 2021)

The court held that SARS was not obliged to request additional substantiating documents under rule 8 before declaring the taxpayer's objections invalid. The word 'may' in rule 8(1) confers a discretionary power, not a duty. The taxpayer failed to provide any evidence or explanation for the claimed business kilometres and did not submit the required documents with his objections. The objections were properly declared invalid under rule 7, and the taxpayer had the opportunity to submit new objections within 20 days, which he failed to do. The application for a final order altering the assessments was dismissed as the procedural and substantive requirements were not met.

Citation
[2021] ZATC 20
Parties
Appellant: Mr A; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Case Number
0059/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Final Order Under Rule 56 of the Tax Administration Act
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Olsen
Legal Topics
Tax Administration Act, Income Tax Assessment, Procedural Validity of Objection, Rule 8 and Rule 7 Interpretation
Tax Law Civil Procedure Tax Administration Act Income Tax Assessment Procedural Validity of Objection Rule 8 and Rule 7 Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr A

Appellant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Final Order Under Rule 56 of the Tax Administration Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SARS was obliged to request additional substantiating documents under rule 8 before declaring the taxpayer's objections invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the taxpayer's objections to the additional assessments were valid and properly substantiated.
  3. 3 Whether the taxpayer is entitled to a final order altering the assessments under section 129(2) of the Tax Administration Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that SARS was not obliged to request additional substantiating documents under rule 8 before declaring the taxpayer's objections invalid. The word 'may' in rule 8(1) confers a discretionary power, not a duty. The taxpayer failed to provide any evidence or explanation for the claimed business kilometres and did not submit the required documents with his objections. The objections were properly declared invalid under rule 7, and the taxpayer had the opportunity to submit new objections within 20 days, which he failed to do. The application for a final order altering the assessments was dismissed as the procedural and substantive requirements were not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application launched by Notice of Motion dated 1 August 2019 is dismissed with costs.