South Africa Case Law

Premier Plastics (PTY) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (9726/2021)

Premier Plastics (PTY) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (9726/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 755 (28 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9726/2021

Judge

Windell

The High Court held that the plastic bags were under 24 microns, not levy goods, and were exported to Lesotho and Eswatini. SARS’s levy assessment was set aside.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Environmental Levy
• Export Exemption
• Practice Generally Prevailing
• Burden Of Proof
• Customs-and-excise

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v KWJ Investments Service (Pty) Ltd (466/2017)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v KWJ Investments Service (Pty) Ltd (466/2017) [2018] ZASCA 81; 81 SATC 1 (31 May 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

466/2017

Judges

Navsa, Wallis, Mbha, Davis, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the cession of dividend rights to the respondent constituted incorporeal property with a monetary value, which could be classified as gross income under s 1 of the Income Tax Act. The rights were acquired unconditionally and could be valued and disposed of in the market. However, the respondent provided sufficient evidence that, at the time of the original assessments, the Commissioner had a practice generally prevailing of not taxing such cessions of dividend rights as separate accruals. This was supported by departmental rulings and consistent treatment…

Source excerpt

• Gross Income Definition
• Cession Of Dividend Rights
• Practice Generally Prevailing
• Income Tax Act Section 1
• Income Tax Act Section 24j
• Tax Assessment Prescription

Commissioner for South African Revenue Services v Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. (337/98)

Commissioner for South African Revenue Services v Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. (337/98) [2000] ZASCA 34; 2000 (4) SA 790 (SCA) (1 September 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

337/98

Judges

Hefer, Nienaber, Howie, Olivier, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a general departmental practice allowed double deductions for scientific research expenditure, barring additional assessments under section 79(1).

• Income Tax Assessment
• Double Deduction
• Practice Generally Prevailing
• Scientific Research Expenditure
• Income-tax
• Additional-assessment

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v SA Mutual Unit Trust Management Company Ltd. (532/88)

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v SA Mutual Unit Trust Management Company Ltd. (532/88) [1990] ZASCA 76; 1990 (4) SA 529 (AD); (23 August 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

532/88

Judges

Corbett, Van Heerden, Kumleben, Nicholas, Goldstone

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that, at the time of the original assessment for the 1981 tax year, there was a practice generally prevailing in the Department of Inland Revenue to allow the deduction of the full cost of shares acquired in dividend stripping operations. The evidence showed some uncertainty and isolated instances of such losses being allowed, but did not establish a consistent and authorized departmental practice. The Court found that the Commissioner was not precluded by section 79(1), proviso (iii) from issuing rev…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Assessment
• Dividend Stripping
• Practice Generally Prevailing
• Onus Of Proof
• Deductibility Of Losses