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
Taxpayer Arrow v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 45776) [2024] ZATC 21 (29 November 2024)
The Tax Court held that the taxpayer’s settlement-related rights accrued in 2010 and were taxable, but it remitted understatement penalties and interest.
TALT v Commissioner For South African Revenue Services (A2023/077887) [2024] ZAGPJHC 827; 87 SATC 222 (27 August 2024)
The Full Court held that the taxpayer's objection to the 2012 additional assessment, although framed in terms of prescription, was in substance an objection to the inclusion of the taxable capital gain of R47 329 834 in its taxable income. The amended Rule 32(3) permits new grounds of appeal unless they relate to a part or amount of the assessment not previously objected to. Since the taxpayer's objection covered the disputed amount, the new ground—relying on the conduit-pipe principle—was permissible. The Court found that refusing to allow the new ground would prevent the true issue from bei…
Source excerpt
South African Municipal Workers Union National Provident Fund v Tlokwe Local Municipality and Others (A129/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 748 (29 July 2024)
Appeal dismissed against refusal to vary a consent order under Rule 42(1)(c) for alleged common mistake about the Fund’s tax status.
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.
Tomson N.O and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 359; 33918/2021 (24 April 2023)
The court found that SARS's decision to refuse the Trust's application for waiver of the distribution requirement under section 18A(2A)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act was materially influenced by an error of law. SARS misinterpreted the statutory purpose and mechanism of the Trust's application, conflating the accumulation of capital with the purpose of funding approved public benefit activities. The court held that the Commissioner has discretion to waive the distribution requirement upon good cause shown, and that the Trust's purpose aligns with the statutory framework. However, the court decl…
Source excerpt
SSN Taxpayer v Commission for the South African Revenue Services (25334) [2023] ZATC 10 (31 March 2023)
The Tax Court held that relocation costs for third-party infrastructure and Town B were not deductible, but allowed deduction of the 66Kv line and set aside understatement penalties.
A v Commissioner For The South African Revenue Services (46206) [2023] ZATC 1; 86 SATC 225 (21 February 2023)
The Tax Court allowed a taxpayer to set off a foreign assessed loss against foreign recoupment income from a deemed aircraft disposal.
HAB Personnel Services CC v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (A168/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 852 (8 November 2022)
The High Court dismissed HAB Personnel Services CC’s appeal against SARS, upholding PAYE, SDL, penalties, and interest on payments to alleged contractors.
Mr Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 45628) [2022] ZATC 8; 85 SATC 331 (17 August 2022)
The Tax Court held that R60 million paid for a restraint of trade was gross income under section 1(cB), and dismissed the appeal.
SACS (Louis Trichardt) (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (40420/2020 ; 17064/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 710 (14 July 2022)
The court held that the default judgment by Cloete J in the Tax Court did not address the merits of the dispute regarding the interpretation and application of sections 10(1)(zI), 11(g), and 8(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, it did not constitute a 'final decision' for purposes of the APA, and SARS was not precluded from auditing or assessing the applicant's tax liabilities for the 2013-2019 tax years. The APA required a reasoned judgment on the merits to resolve the parties' divergent interpretations, which had not occurred. Regarding prescription, the court found that section 99(1)(…
Source excerpt
Explore more
