South Africa Case Law

Pear (Proprietary) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 46080)

Pear (Proprietary) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 46080) [2024] ZATC 19 (5 December 2024)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 46080

Judges

M W Janisch, L Groener, S Louw

The court held that SARS was not entitled to issue the additional assessment for the 2017 tax year, as the three-year prescription period under section 99(1) of the Tax Administration Act had expired. SARS failed to discharge the onus of proving that any misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the Appellant caused the non-assessment of the full amount of tax within the prescribed period. The Appellant's tax return and subsequent correspondence disclosed the nature of the insurance premium and policy, and SARS's own verification process did not result in an adjustment within the three-year peri…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Assessment
• Prescription Of Tax Debt
• Insurance Premium Deductibility
• Ifrs Accounting Treatment
• Understatement Penalty

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v M (A5036/2022)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v M (A5036/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 769 (6 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5036/2022

Judges

Wepener, Adams, Mahalelo

SARS appeal upheld in a tax dispute over whether unexplained bank deposits were income or loan repayments. Most assessed amounts were confirmed as taxable income.

• Income Tax Assessment
• Burden Of Proof
• Prescription Of Tax Debt
• Loan Repayment Vs Income
• Understatement Penalty
• Income-tax

Taxpayer RPC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1373 & 13862)

Taxpayer RPC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1373 & 13862) [2023] ZATC 9 (3 July 2023)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1373 & 13862

Judges

N.P. Mali, N Jiyane, T Mtombeni

The court found that SARS acted reasonably in issuing estimated assessments based on the limited information available, as the taxpayer failed to submit required returns and did not provide supporting documentation. The taxpayer's explanations regarding loan repayments were unsupported and contradicted by evidence, and his conduct demonstrated a plan to evade tax by disguising income and withholding information. The methodology used by SARS satisfied the objective test for reasonableness under the circumstances. The penalties imposed, including the 200% understatement penalty and the 20% late…

Source excerpt

• Estimated Assessment
• Understatement Penalty
• Vat Liability
• Capex Deduction
• Prescription Of Tax Debt
• Costs Award

Mr K v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (14232)

Mr K v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (14232) [2021] ZATC 17 (16 July 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

14232

Judges

A A Crutchfield, Ms D Ndlovu, Ms M Padia

The Tax Court held that amounts paid to the taxpayer were capital loan repayments, not taxable income, and set aside SARS’s additional assessments.

• Income Tax Assessment
• Prescription Of Tax Debt
• Understatement Penalty
• Onus Of Proof
• Characterisation Of Receipts
• Costs Award