Press "Enter" to skip to content

South Africa – a snapshot of the latest tax developments in South Africa by ENS

Tax Court of South Africa, Cape Town | CM v CSARS (TAdm 0035/2019)

  • the Applicant sought default judgment against SARS in terms of Rule 56 of the Tax Court Rules to reduce her tax liability to nil, where she alleged that SARS was in default of its obligation to file a Rule 31 statement (i.e. a statement of grounds of assessment and opposing appeal).
  • whether an application in terms of Rule 56 has to be issued by the registrar and assigned a case number before same can properly be served on the other side, considered.
  • requirement that the Applicant’s Rule 56 application be preceded by a valid objection and a valid notice of appeal, discussed. o whether the Applicant, following receipt from SARS of a letter withdrawing condonation of the late filing of her objection in terms of section 9 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (“TAA”), could pursue an appeal without establishing the validity of the objection, considered. o when an objection becomes invalid following a notice of invalid objection from SARS (on the basis that condonation for late filing of the objection was withdrawn), considered.
  • the role of explanatory memoranda and parliamentary material in the interpretation of statutes, considered.
  • SARS officials’ statutory powers to extend the period for objecting to an assessment, considered.
  • Applicant ordered to pay SARS’ costs on attorney and own client scale where her application was insupportable and an abuse of process.
  • find a copy of this judgment here.

Tax Court of South Africa, Gauteng | Mr Z v CSARS (IT 4412)

  • appeal against SARS’ decision to disallow additional medical tax credits relating to treatment for mercury poisoning which allegedly caused his disability (multiple sclerosis and peripheral polyneuropathy).
  • the onus on the Appellant, in terms of section 102(1)(b) of the TAA, to prove that the additional medical expenses (definitions of “disability” and “qualifying medical expenses” in terms of section 6B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1962) are deductible by not presenting affirmative evidence that his disability was caused by mercury poisoning, considered.
  • Appellant ordered to pay SARS’ costs, in terms of section 130(1)(b) and (c) of the TAA, on the basis that the lack of evidence was the reason he did not succeed in front of the Tax Board and that he should have anticipated the same evidentiary burden in front of the Tax Court.
  • find a copy of this judgment here.

Download the FULL article here