Tax Court: 2025–2023

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Whether the Insurer, in the providing of indemnity insurance in terms of the policy, was rendering ‘services’ to the Fund, in respect of which the Fund was entitled to deduct, as ‘input tax’, the VAT component of the premiums paid to the Insurer – Whether SARS’s ultra vires argument has any merit – Whether SARS’s ‘invoices’ argument has any merit.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether SARS’s averments in its rule 31 statement contravene rule 31(3), comprising a novation of the entire factual and legal basis of the assessment.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Procedure: Whether the court should go behind the documents discovered by SARS and order it to discover more documents which the applicant contends should be in existence and in the possession of SARS; and whether SARS should be ordered to discover the documents which it has discovered but in a different format as requested by the applicant.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Tax treatment of raising fees: Whether the raising of fees are deductible “interest or similar finance charges” as envisaged in section 24J of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Interlocutory application for default judgment: Whether SARS has shown good cause. There is also the issue of appropriate relief in the event the applicant succeeds. 

Income Tax Act, 1962

Prescription, Insurance premium deduction and USP: Whether prescription applies to the additional assessment raised for the 2017 tax year – whether the Appellant is entitled to claim the full amount of R10 million as alleged insurance policy premiums paid to the insurer in the 2017 tax year as a deduction in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act – whether notional interest earned in respect of the experience accounts related to the alleged insurance policy is to be deemed to have accrued to the Appellant in the 2017 tax year and included in the Appellant’s gross income for each of these periods – whether SARS was correct in imposing an understatement penalty of 10% on the Appellant for the 2017 tax year.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Default Judgment and condonation

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether an objection treated by the respondent as invalid, is valid

Income Tax Act, 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Prescription – deduction – penalty – USP  – Interest – General Anti-avoidance rules

Income Tax Act, 1962

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Application to separate issues in dispute: Whether the applicant will be able relying only these two judgments to advance an argument only on question of law, which question can only be determined separately.  

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Default judgment-condonation application

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether SARS has shown good cause for its default – whether the following factors militate in favour of default judgment or condonation:

1. Prospects of success
2. Balance of prejudice

Income Tax Act, 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the appeal by the taxpayer is to be allowed, and whether the additional assessments, including the understatement penalties and interest assessments, are to be upheld.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Default judgment-condonation application

Income Tax Act, 1962

Deductibility of advance payments: Whether an advance payments amount may be deducted for income tax purposes.

Income Tax Act, 1962

Application to set aside as an irregular step in terms of High Court Rule 30(1) –whether SARS’s rule 31 statement represented a fundamental and impermissible change of tack from its assessment and that sought to rescue SARS from the consequences of its refusal to accept the cogency of information provided to it.

Income Tax Act, 1962

Deduction: Whether the Company XYZ deposits in respect of premiums paid to it are deductible in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act.  

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Tax cost de bonis propriis: Whether the order made on 3 October 2023 is to be contested.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Condonation for late delivery of discovery in terms of rule 36(6):  Whether the Court should condone the late filing of the rule 36(6) notice which will result in SARS being obliged to respond to such notice. 

Income Tax Act, 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Transfer pricing – arm’s length price adjustment: Whether appellant may appeal against an increased assessment imposed on it by the respondent. 

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

The “ratio” of goods and services a vendor intends to use for taxable compared to other uses: Whether and how the Head Lease should be factored into the taxpayer’s section 17(1) apportionment ratio.

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

A special plea, as a separate and preliminary point, to introduce a challenge to the Tax Court’s jurisdiction: Whether the ruling fits the description of the type of decision described in section 32(1)(a)(iv) of the VAT Act 89 of 21991, and not whether SARS refused to do something it should have done.

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Discovery of documentation and further particulars.

The court was called upon to decide on three interlocutory applications as follows:

1. First, an application by the taxpayer to compel SARS to furnish it with further discovery.
2. Second, an application by the taxpayer to compel SARS to furnish it with further particulars.
3. Third, an application by SARS to compel the taxpayer to furnish SARS with further discovery.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Jurisdiction of Tax Court: Whether the appellant was in law entitled to claim the deduction of losses, which losses take the form of time-expired claims for refunds of duties and levies paid by the appellant in its 2013 year of assessment, under the rubric of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964.

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Supply of services to non- resident: the nature of that supply, and whether it also constitutes in part a supply to the foreign tourists who subscribe to the foreign tour operator’s tours.

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether appellant was entitled to deduct VAT incurred on meals and accommodation provided to its employees as input tax, and whether respondent was entitled to impose an understatement penalty of 10%.

Interlocutory applications to amend Commissioner’s grounds of assessments and opposing appeal – Rule 31 statement; and Taxpayer to amend grounds of appeals – Rule 32 statement; whether the tested transaction was an arms-length one or not.

Whether the taxpayer’s expenditure on the grant to Newco is properly characterised as being revenue or capital in nature

Prescription objection: Objection to a whole assessment is not permissible –  capital gains tax.

Value-added tax – whether the taxpayer under-declared income from mining activities – taxpayer underdeclared other income (non-mining income) for the relevant period – whether the taxpayer was entitled to claim CAPEX – whether SARS was justified to impose an understatement penalty of 200% – penalties in terms of the Fourth Schedule – section 89quat interest – prescription – costs.

Procedure: An opposed interlocutory application in terms of rule 51 (2) of the tax court rules for ‘a legality review in limine as part of’ the appellant’s pending tax appeal.

The ‘principal purpose’ of the application is to seek the separate, advance determination of three “legal issues”. If the court grants the principal relief, the ‘secondary purpose’ is twofold and ‘to the extent necessary’: (a) for leave to amend the applicant’s rule 32 statement “consequentially”; and (b) permitting the applicant to raise a ‘collateral, defensive or reactive’ challenge to the lawfulness of the additional assessments referred to below. According to the applicant the three legal issues are potentially dispositive of the pending appeal, and if any one of them is determined in his favour there will be no need for the appeal to proceed for the hearing of evidence.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Employment Tax Incentive Act, 2013