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 S v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 45997) [2022] ZATC 12 (29 December 2022)
The Tax Court dismissed a strike-out application, holding that SARS could include new factual grounds in its rule 31 statement so long as they did not novate the assessment.
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Big G Restaurants (Pty) Ltd (157/2018) [2018] ZASCA 179; 2019 (3) SA 90 (SCA); 81 SATC 185 (3 December 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 24C requires both the income and the obligation to originate from the same contract. The taxpayer did not receive income under the franchise agreement; rather, income was earned from contracts with patrons. The franchise agreement enabled the taxpayer to operate the business but did not itself create a right to income. Therefore, the taxpayer's claim for a section 24C allowance failed, as the statutory requirements were not met. The appeal was upheld and the order of the Tax Court was set aside.
Source excerpt
ABC (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner For The South African Revenue Service (13988) [2018] ZATC 5; 81 SATC 214 (1 November 2018)
The court found that the first purchase and sale contract triggers both the earning of income by the appellant and the obligation to incur future expenditure towards the customer, as points are awarded at the time of sale and the appellant becomes obliged to provide goods when the customer redeems the voucher. The loyalty card contract sets the terms, but the operative contract for section 24C purposes is the first purchase and sale contract. The court held that it is artificial and factually incorrect to treat the future expenditure as arising under a different contract. Therefore, the appel…
Source excerpt
B v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (IT14240) [2017] ZATC 3; 80 SATC 223 (3 November 2017)
The Tax Court held that franchise income and refurbishment obligations arose under the same contract, allowing a section 24C deduction for future expenditure.
ABC (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (ITI13772) [2016] ZATC 7; 79 SATC 62 (4 November 2016)
Tax Court held section 24C did not apply because the income and future expenditure arose from different contracts, but remitted the understatement penalty.
Explore more
