South Africa Case Law

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Absa Bank Limited and Another (596/2021)

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)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

596/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Schippers, Matojane, Goosen, Mali

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.

• General Anti Avoidance Rule
• Income Tax Act
• Tax Assessment Review
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Principle Of Legality
• General-anti-avoidance-rule

Absa Bank Limited and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (21825/19)

Absa Bank Limited and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (21825/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 414 (25 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21825/19

Judge

Fabricius

The court held that the applicants should be granted leave to amend their notice of motion to include review of SARS's decisions to issue letters and notices of assessment. The amendments are closely connected to the existing grounds of review and do not introduce new causes of action that would prejudice the respondent. The respondent will have the opportunity to respond fully in the main application, and any potential prejudice can be remedied by costs. The High Court retains jurisdiction to review such decisions, and the statutory remedies under the Tax Administration Act do not oust this…

Source excerpt

• Tax Assessment Review
• Impermissible Tax Avoidance
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Amendment Of Notice Of Motion
• Jurisdiction Of High Court

Ntayiya v South African Revenue Service (CA36/2018)

Ntayiya v South African Revenue Service (CA36/2018) [2018] ZAECMHC 55 (17 August 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA36/2018

Judges

J M Roberson, M J Lowe, N Mlomzale

The High Court upheld an appeal, granted condonation for non-compliance with Tax Administration Act notice requirements, and sent the tax review back on the merits.

• Tax Assessment Review
• Condonation
• Tax Administration Act
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Tax-assessment-review
• Tax-administration-act

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Stepney Investments (20192/14)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Stepney Investments (20192/14) [2015] ZASCA 138; [2016] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 608 (SCA); 78 SATC 86 (30 September 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20192/14

Judges

Navsa, Shongwe, Majiedt, Mbha, Van der Merwe

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Bridge Capital valuation submitted by Stepney Investments was fatally flawed in several material respects. The valuation relied on outdated and unreliable financial projections, failed to account for actual figures available at the time of valuation, used the wrong valuation date, understated tax and capital expenditure, and did not properly factor in risk elements such as the term and renewal of the casino licence and unresolved litigation. The court held that Stepney Investments did not discharge its onus to prove the base cost of the shares for ca…

Source excerpt

• Capital Gains Tax
• Base Cost Determination
• Discounted Cash Flow Valuation
• Onus Of Proof
• Expert Evidence
• Tax Assessment Review