South Africa Case Law

Ken CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22184)

Ken CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22184) [2023] ZATC 15; 86 SATC 511 (8 December 2023)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 22184

Judges

Dickerson, Sunel Louw, Yolisa Molefe

The court found that Ken CC acted as an agent for foreign tour operators, providing package assembly and arranging services, not as a principal supplying tourism services. Ken CC did not own or control the tourism services, did not alter their nature or value, and only declared its commission as income for VAT purposes. The evidence, including contracts, invoices, and industry practice, demonstrated that Ken CC's role was limited to arranging and booking services on behalf of FTOs, with no direct supply to foreign tourists. SARS's reliance on the XO Africa case was misplaced, as the facts wer…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax
• Agency Vs Principal
• Zero Rating
• Late Payment Interest
• Late Payment Penalty
• Tax Administration Act

D v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT1390)

D v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT1390) [2016] ZATC 9; 79 SATC 105 (14 June 2016)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT1390

Judges

Binns-Ward, P. Surtees, K. Hofmeyr

The Tax Court held that a fast-food delivery company was liable for VAT on delivery charges collected from customers as part of its taxable consideration.

• Value Added Tax
• Supply Of Services
• Agency Vs Principal
• Consideration
• Output Tax Liability
• Value-added-tax

ABD CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 969)

ABD CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 969) [2015] ZATC 6 (30 March 2015)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 969

Judge

Le Grange

The court found that the Appellant supplied local services directly to the customers of foreign tour operators, who were present in the Republic at the time the services were rendered. The evidence showed that the Appellant contracted with local suppliers, invoiced the foreign tour operators for the full package, and acted as principal in the supply of services. The Appellant's involvement in arranging, supervising, and invoicing for the local services, as well as its financial accounting treatment, demonstrated that it was not merely an agent or intermediary. The contracts and conduct indica…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax
• Zero Rating
• Services Supplied To Non Residents
• Destination Principle
• Agency Vs Principal
• Input Deduction