The Tax Ombud, Yanga Mputa, has encouraged taxpayers and tax practitioners who experience unfair, inconsistent, or unduly frustrating treatment from the South African Revenue Service to lodge complaints with her office.
Her invitation follows an open letter by seasoned tax practitioner Charné van der Walt to SARS Commissioner Edward Kieswetter, setting out her clients’ growing frustration, confusion, despondency, and anger over how they are treated by SARS.
In her letter, published by Netwerk24, Van der Walt explains that she has no qualms about the fact that SARS must collect taxes. “It is the way in which matters are being dealt with. It is sometimes unfair, sometimes frustrating, but most of the time it is inconsistent.”
She says taxpayers are not only losing respect for her but also for SARS and for paying taxes. Clients with skills and knowledge are leaving the country and are paying tax in countries where they can get bang for their buck.
Systemic issues
Mputa confirms that her office receives complaints from taxpayers raising concerns similar to those addressed in Van der Walt’s letter. These include delays in verifications and procedural challenges, and the impact of these processes on taxpayers.
“Where trends or patterns of concern are identified, the OTO (Office of the Tax Ombud) may, subject to the necessary approvals, review systemic or emerging issues and engage with SARS, including the Commissioner, within the scope of its mandate.”
Mputa advises taxpayers and their practitioners to keep records of correspondence and timelines during the verification process and to escalate unresolved matters through SARS’s internal complaints mechanisms. When there are unreasonable delays, or where procedural irregularities are experienced, they should approach the OTO.
In response to Van der Walt’s letter, SARS’s senior communications specialist, Thabo Mkhize, said SARS cannot discuss individual matters in public fora, to protect taxpayer confidentiality.
He said the stakeholder engagement team will engage with her to “consider process pain points and potential improvements”. Van der Walt is also welcome to submit anonymised summaries or case references for a quality‑assurance review by SARS.
Hard questions
Some of Van der Walt’s candid questions are:
- Why does SARS not correct obvious errors to administrative penalties when requested to dos so in accordance with the process?
- Why did SARS levy penalties of R6 000 on a client who was a provisional taxpayer for one year and who submitted his tax return later than his other returns, but still in time for the provisional taxpayer deadline? After a year and several requests, this has not been rectified.
- Why did SARS penalise another client with 19 months of administrative penalties with the incorrect amount – R1 000 a month instead of R250? And before the issue could be addressed SARS, took R19 000 from the client’s bank account. She has been struggling since March 2025 to get her client’s money back.
- Why did SARS resubmit a tax return that she had submitted, remove information without her or the taxpayer’s knowledge, and then keep her practice code on the return as if she had resubmitted it?
- Why does SARS contact her clients, even over weekends, and sometimes via letter, without loading the letters onto eFiling, which means she would not have been aware of the communication if her client had not forwarded it to her?
- Why did SARS unilaterally cancel a payment arrangement with her client when the client has a written agreement and never skipped a payment? And why did the client then receive a threatening letter because she was not “co-operating”, which was false?
Van der Walt says better systems and better communication can save a lot of this work and effort. “I also think that SARS could be more co-operative by firstly to acknowledge their mistakes and secondly to correct it quicker,” she adds.
Social contract
Stiaan Klue, the executive dean and chief executive of The Tax Faculty, says the academic institution works closely with the tax industry and Van der Walt’s pain points align with data that emerged from its 2025 tax practice survey.
He says the role of the tax practitioner has evolved from “compliance agent” to “risk insulator”. In a functional system, do-it-yourself software would reduce the need for intermediaries.
“In South Africa, we observe a flight away from DIY. With 31% of refund returns now triggering automatic audits, the public views the tax practitioner as a necessary shield against an increasingly hostile administrative environment.”
Klue notes there has been an erosion of the “co-operative compliance” contract. Tax morality is predicated on a social contract. The taxpayer discloses fully in exchange for fair and predictable treatment.
“This contract is fraying,” warns Klue. The hardening of the Voluntary Disclosure Programme, where 35% of applications were rejected in 2025 solely because of a refund position, signals to the taxpayer that transparency may be penalised.
“To restore genuine tax morality, SARS must bridge the digital alienation by reintegrating human oversight into its automated workflows.”
Klue agrees with Van der Walt it is time that someone is brave enough to ask the hard questions. “If the revenue authority continues to substitute human discretion with aggressive algorithms that flag risk in nearly 100% of cases, we risk a legitimacy crisis.”
Amanda Visser is a freelance journalist who specialises in tax and has written about trade law, competition law, and regulatory issues.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and are not necessarily shared by Moonstone Information Refinery or its sister companies.
