Flower v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 25209) [2025] ZATC 3 (3 February 2025)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
IT 25209
Judge
Crutchfield
The Tax Court held that SARS’s rule 31 statement impermissibly novated the assessment, allowed Flower’s pre-trade development fees, and rejected ring-fencing.
S G Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT14264) [2018] ZATC 1; 81 SATC 308 (9 May 2018)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
IT14264
Judges
J I Cloete, B R Hilliard, T Pasiwe
The court found that the taxpayer's dominant purpose in making the R48 million contribution to the Trust was to incentivise and retain key management staff, thereby enhancing the taxpayer's income-producing capacity. The scheme was structured so that employees benefited from the growth in the holding company's shares, and the contribution was not repaid to the taxpayer. The evidence established a sufficiently close causal link between the expenditure and the taxpayer's income-producing operations. The court distinguished the present case from Solaglass, as the expenditure was not for the bene…
Warner Lambert SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (277/02) [2003] ZASCA 59; 2003 (5) SA 344 (SCA); 65 SATC 346 (30 May 2003)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
277/02
Judges
Howie, Schutz, Conradie, Lewis, Mlambo
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that socially responsible expenditure incurred to protect a subsidiary’s trading position was deductible as revenue expenditure.