Z v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT4412) [2019] ZATC 13; 82 SATC 218 (26 August 2019)

Z v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT4412) [2019] ZATC 13; 82 SATC 218 (26 August 2019)

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof required to substantiate his claim for additional medical expenses tax credits. He did not provide medical reports or call witnesses who were duly registered medical practitioners, homeopaths, or herbalists to confirm that his disability was caused by mercury poisoning or that the expenses claimed were incurred in consequence of his disability. The invoices submitted were insufficient to prove compliance with section 6B(1). The purchase of the X Machine did not qualify as a deductible expense under the relevant statutory provisions, as it was neither prescribed by a registered practitioner nor shown to be necessary...

Citation
[2019] ZATC 13
Parties
Appellant: Mr Z; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2019
Case Number
IT 4412
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Appeal From Tax Board to Tax Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondent's assessment confirmed; costs awarded against appellant.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Medical Tax Credits, Burden of Proof, Qualifying Medical Expenses, Disability Definition
Tax Law Medical Tax Credits Burden of Proof Qualifying Medical Expenses Disability Definition

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Z

Appellant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Appeal From Tax Board to Tax Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to additional medical expenses tax credits under section 6B(1) of the Income Tax Act for the 2015 year of assessment.
  2. 2 Whether the expenses claimed by the appellant qualify as deductible medical expenses under section 6B(1).
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proof required to substantiate his claim for medical tax credits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof required to substantiate his claim for additional medical expenses tax credits. He did not provide medical reports or call witnesses who were duly registered medical practitioners, homeopaths, or herbalists to confirm that his disability was caused by mercury poisoning or that the expenses claimed were incurred in consequence of his disability. The invoices submitted were insufficient to prove compliance with section 6B(1). The purchase of the X Machine did not qualify as a deductible expense under the relevant statutory provisions, as it was neither prescribed by a registered practitioner nor shown to be necessary...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; respondent's assessment confirmed; costs awarded against appellant.

Orders

  • The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent’s assessment is confirmed.