South Africa Case Law

ABC (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1857)

ABC (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1857) [2020] ZATC 24; 83 SATC 396 (25 February 2020)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1857

Judge

Sievers

The court held that the definition of 'consideration' in section 1 of the VAT Act is broad and unambiguous, including any payment made in respect of the supply of goods, which encompasses transfer duty paid on the acquisition of immovable property from non-vendors. The court found that the inclusion of transfer duty in the calculation of notional input tax is consistent with the language, context, and purpose of the VAT Act, and does not result in the recovery of transfer duty but rather ensures that VAT is not paid twice on the same value-added. The respondent's unilateral practice was deeme…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax
• Notional Input Tax
• Transfer Duty
• Statutory Interpretation

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Short and Another (A289/2017)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Short and Another (A289/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 9; [2018] 2 All SA 100 (WCC); 2018 (3) SA 492 (WCC); 80 SATC 241 (7 February 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A289/2017

Judges

A.G. Binns-Ward, B. Waglay, L. Nuku

The court held that the contract between the respondents and the seller constituted a single indivisible transaction for the acquisition of property, not two separate transactions. This conclusion was supported by the joint and several liability of the purchasers, the single purchase price, and the integrated nature of the rights acquired. The contract did not allocate separate considerations for the bare dominium and the right of habitatio, and the formalities required by the Alienation of Land Act would not be satisfied if the contract were treated as divisible. The court found that the sub…

Source excerpt

• Transfer Duty
• Bare Dominium
• Right Of Habitatio
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Contract Interpretation

Ms A and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT13974; 13993)

Ms A and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT13974; 13993) [2017] ZATC 15 (24 March 2017)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 13974 & 13993

Judges

LE GRANGE, DONOVAN BRINDERS, JOACHIM VERMOOTEN

The Tax Court held that a sale of bare dominium and habitatio rights was divisible for transfer duty, so duty had to be assessed on apportioned values.

• Transfer Duty
• Bare Dominium
• Right Of Habitatio
• Divisibility Of Contract
• Valuation Of Real Rights
• Transfer-duty

Royal Anthem Investments 129 (Pty) Ltd v Lau (941/2012)

Royal Anthem Investments 129 (Pty) Ltd v Lau (941/2012) [2014] ZASCA 19; 2014 (3) SA 626 (SCA) (26 March 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

941/2012

Judges

Ponnan, Mhlantla, Leach, Mathopo, Mocumie

The Supreme Court of Appeal ordered repayment of a deposit and transfer duty paid for a failed land sale, holding the seller could not retain funds held by the conveyancer.

• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Deposit Repayment
• Transfer Duty
• Conveyancing Attorney Liability
• Sale-of-immovable-property
• Deposit-repayment

Moola v Salie (A 410/2010)

Moola v Salie (A 410/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 324 (12 August 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A 410/2010

Judges

Kirk-Cohen, Zondi

High Court appeal over a structured property sale, debt acknowledgment, transfer duty, and costs. The appeal was dismissed save for costs.

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Transfer Duty
• Contractual Variation
• Simulated Transaction
• Accessio
• Costs Order

Milner Street Properties (Pty) Ltd v Eckstein Properties (Pty) Ltd (488/99)

Milner Street Properties (Pty) Ltd v Eckstein Properties (Pty) Ltd (488/99) [2001] ZASCA 95; 2001 (4) SA 1315 (SCA); 64 SATC 60 (21 September 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

488/99

Judges

Nienaber, Schutz, Scott, Navsa, Nugent

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the formal written requirements introduced by the amendment to section 11(1)(e) of the Value Added Tax Act were probative, not constitutive. Their purpose was to provide certainty for the Commissioner regarding the nature of the transaction, not to invalidate agreements that failed to record the requirements in writing. The parties were in consensus that the sale was of an enterprise as a going concern and that the purchase price was inclusive of VAT at zero percent. The failure to record these facts in writing was due to ignorance of the amendment, not a…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax Act
• Zero Rating
• Rectification Of Contract
• Formal Requirements
• Going Concern
• Transfer Duty

De Leef Family Trust and Others v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (562/91)

De Leef Family Trust and Others v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (562/91) [1993] ZASCA 46; 1993 (3) SA 345 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 288 (A) (31 March 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

562/91

Judges

Joubert, Smalberger, Nicholas, Howie, Kriegler

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that De Leef and Jacobs did not acquire enforceable rights to obtain transfer of the immovable property on 4 May 1983. Their rights as shareholders vested (dies cedit) upon ownership of the shares, but only became enforceable (dies venit) after confirmation of the liquidation and distribution account by the Master. By the time dies venit occurred, De Leef and Jacobs had already ceded their rights to the respective trusts, and the property was transferred directly to the trusts. Therefore, they never acquired the personal right to claim transfer of the property…

Source excerpt

• Transfer Duty
• Date Of Acquisition
• Liquidation Distribution
• Cession Of Rights

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Collins (523/90)

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Collins (523/90) [1992] ZASCA 110; 1992 (3) SA 698 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 294 (A) (1 June 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

523/90

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Van Heerden, Vivier, Van den Heever

The Appellate Division held that Collins incurred transfer duty on a property purchase, and a later nominee substitution did not cancel the transaction.

• Transfer Duty
• Nomination Of Purchaser
• Contractual Cancellation
• Resolutive Condition
• Delegation And Novation
• Transfer-duty