
ConCourt judgment widens High Court’s jurisdiction in tax cases
The Court replaces the restrictive ‘exceptional circumstances’ test with a flexible ‘good cause’ standard, creating new forum-choice opportunities.

The Court replaces the restrictive ‘exceptional circumstances’ test with a flexible ‘good cause’ standard, creating new forum-choice opportunities.

SARS will negotiate compromises only where liability is undisputed and both parties agree the taxpayer cannot pay in full.

Requiring SARS to provide written reasons when it rejects the OTO’s recommendations has resulted in an increase in the resolution of complaints.

A proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act will tax unit trust investors on capital distributions before disposals, without any base cost offset.

Proposed amendments could undermine the tax-efficient compounding that makes a collective investment scheme an attractive investment vehicle.

The proposal restricts the ‘bona fide inadvertent error’ defence under the understatement penalty regime to cases where the tax shortfall is a ‘substantial understatement’.

The Supreme Court of Appeal confirms that re-quantifying a tax debt post-rescue commencement doesn’t create a new, preferential liability – cementing SARS’s place as a concurrent creditor under an approved rescue plan.

The move will limit taxpayer defences that rely solely on claiming an unintentional mistake.

Taxpayers may struggle to challenge SARS’s authority to repatriate foreign assets after a High Court ruling upheld its powers, potentially paving the way for more assertive tax enforcement.

The Tax Court rules against SARS in a dispute over a contingency insurance deduction, reaffirming the legitimacy of the policy and its role in protecting income-generating activities.

The Tax Ombud’s 2023/24 report highlights delays in SARS meeting resolution deadlines, an increase in complaints, and a concerning rise in eFiling profile hijacking.

SARS can appoint third parties to deduct tax debts directly from retirement funds, overriding the protections under the Pension Funds Act.

Taxpayers may soon have a faster, cost-effective way to resolve disputes with SARS through alternative dispute resolution at the objection phase.

Expert legal interpretations, even if contrary to SARS’s stance, may not automatically result in understatement penalties.

The court’s interpretation and application of the conduit principle has implications for structures involving layers of multiple discretionary trusts.

An Interpretation Note provides clear guidelines on when a practitioner can be prohibited from registering or deregistered due to non-compliance.

The decision could set a precedent for taxpayers seeking relief from interest after reaching a Voluntary Disclosure Programme agreement with SARS.