Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
BCJ v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2024/8) [2025] ZATC 7 (23 May 2025)
The Tax Court held that SARS gave inadequate reasons for a GAAR assessment because it did not explain why the arrangement was said to occur in a business context.
Taxpayer EJP v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 76704) [2024] ZATC 22; 87 SATC 331 (24 May 2024)
The Tax Court held that SARS’s Rule 31 statement in a GAAR dispute was an irregular step because it changed the basis of the assessment without a new notice.
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Absa Bank Limited and Another (596/2021) [2023] ZASCA 125; 2024 (1) SA 361 (SCA); 86 SATC 195 (29 September 2023)
The SCA held that SARS’s refusal to withdraw section 80J notices was not separately reviewable, and that the tax assessments involved disputed facts, not a pure question of law.
Erasmus v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (9706/21) [2023] ZAWCHC 215; [2024] 1 All SA 153 (WCC); 86 SATC 56 (18 August 2023)
The High Court refused to exempt a taxpayer from using SARS objection and appeal remedies in a GAAR dispute, and struck the review from the roll.
Trustees of the CC Share Trust and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (38211/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 597; 86 SATC 84 (24 July 2023)
The court held that the applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the High Court's jurisdiction under section 105 of the Tax Administration Act or exemption from exhausting internal remedies under section 7(2) of PAJA. The mere existence of a legal issue or alleged procedural irregularity does not meet the threshold for exceptionality. The Tax Court is competent to adjudicate both factual and legal disputes, including review grounds. The July letter from SARS, although not expressly labelled as a section 42(2)(b) notice, substantively complied with statutory requirem…
Source excerpt
Absa Bank Limited and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2019/21825) [2021] ZAGPPHC 127; 2021 (3) SA 513 (GP); 83 SATC 401 (11 March 2021)
High Court review of SARS section 80J notices succeeded. The court held Absa was not a party to the alleged avoidance arrangement and allowed direct access on a pure law issue.
Absa Bank Limited and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2019/21825 [P]) [2021] ZAGPPHC 183 (1 March 2021)
The High Court held that the refusal by SARS to withdraw the section 80J notices and the subsequent issue of letters of assessment were reviewable under the principle of legality, as the dispute was a pure point of law and exceptional circumstances existed. The court found that Absa was not a 'party' to the impermissible tax avoidance arrangement as defined by the Income Tax Act, since it did not participate with knowledge or intention in the broader scheme involving intermediary entities and offshore transactions. The factual premise relied upon by SARS—that Absa was ignorant of the intermed…
Source excerpt
ACB Company (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commission for the South African Revenue Service (0032/2016; 0033/2016) [2017] ZATC 14 (30 June 2017)
The court found that SARS had provided adequate reasons for the additional assessments. The assessment letter, together with the letter of findings and the applicant's responses, contained sufficient detail regarding the legal basis (section 80B and GAAR provisions), the factual findings, and the reasoning process. The applicants demonstrated an understanding of the arrangements and transactions in their correspondence, and their request for further particulars was deemed unnecessary and a delaying tactic. The requirements set out in Phambili were satisfied, and the applicants would not be pr…
Source excerpt
Explore more
