| 2022 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Delivery | Case Number | Applicable Legislation | Keywords |
| 29 December 2022 | IT 45997 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: Rule 31 statement be struck out on the basis that it introduces an impermissible new ground of assessment in the appeal. |
| 21 December 2022 | 2022/12 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: Default judgment based on delivery of the notices found to be fatally defective because they were not delivered to the chosen address for delivery of documents or processes by SARS in terms of rule 2 of the Rules. |
| 29 November 2022 | IT 45710 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Interpretation of Tax Court Rule 32(3): Appellant “may not include in the statement a ground of appeal that constitutes a new ground of objection against a part or amount of the disputed assessment not objected to under rule 7” – whether the new ground may be relied upon by the applicant on the provisions of rule 32(3), or whether it falls beyond the scope of the type of new ground contemplated in the sub-rule |
| 23 August 2022 | 35476 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: A point in limine raised by SARS that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for reconsideration and assessment – the structure of section 129 |
| 17 August 2022 | IT 45628 | Income Tax Act, 1962 Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Income tax – tax administration – restraint of trade: Whether section 1(cB) finds application to the restraint of trade agreement concluded between the Appellant and the company – whether there is a causal link between the restraint of trade and the previous employment of the appellant and his previous directorship of the company |
| 14 July 2022 | IT 25042 | Income Tax Act, 1962 Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Income tax: General deduction formula – specific deduction provision for interest expenditure incurred notwithstanding that the interest would, inter alia, ordinarily not be deductible under the general formula – whether the finance charges levied in respect of the loans of Propsky and RMB constituted interest for the purposes of section 24J – whether the understatement penalty was correctly levied |
| 10 May 2022 | VAT 1826 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration; Uniform Rules of the Court – whether the respondent has shown good cause for its default to timeously file the statement and whether the court should condone the late filing of the respondent’s statement in terms of Tax Court Rule 31 and direct that the appeal (against the imposition of understatement penalties) proceeds on the merits. If the failure is not condoned, whether default judgment in terms of Rule 56(1)(a), read with section 129 of Act 28 of 2011 should be granted in favour of the applicant. |
| 8 April 2022 | 24578 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration; Uniform Rules of the Court: Whether it is correct, lawful or appropriate for MB to deduct capital expenditure incurred at its AA mine from the revenue earned at its BB and CC mines |
| 16 March 2022 | 35448 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 Income Tax Act, 1962 | Tax administration; income tax: (a) Whether management fees claimed by Taxpayer Z in the sum of R16 million, made up of management fees excluding value-added tax are expressed in the financial accounts of Taxpayer Z as “management fees”. (b) Whether SARS was entitled to impose interest under Act 58 of 1962, and whether SARS should have remitted that interest. (c) Whether SARS was entitled to impose an understatement penalty of 125% under Act 28 of 2011. (d) Whether Taxpayer Z or SARS should pay the costs of the appeal. |
| 25 February 2022 | IT 45842 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: Whether SARS’s delay is so egregious that it should not be countenanced. The second is whether the taxpayer is entitled to the substantive relief which it seeks, namely, the upholding of its appeal in relation to its 2016 to 2018 years of assessment. |
| 9 February 2022 | IT 14213 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: Whether the interest sought to be deducted by the appellant was incurred whilst carrying on a trade; and (ii) whether it was incurred in the production of income. Whether the respondent has successfully discharged the onus resting on it for its imposition of the understatement penalty against the appellant. |
| 14 January 2022 | IT 45585 | Employment Tax Incentive Act, 2013 Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Employment tax incentive; tax administration: Whether the respondent is correct in contending, as in its dismissal of the appellant’s objection, that on a proper interpretation of sections 9(4) and 10(3) of Act 26 of 2013 and the deeming provisions contained therein, the appellant is not entitled to recover the understated amount |
| 2021 | |||
| Date of Delivery | Case Number | Applicable Legislation | Keywords |
| 14 December 2021 | IT 45627 | Income Tax Act, 1962 Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Income tax; tax administration: whether the taxpayer was entitled to the allowances claimed for ‘machinery or plant’ in respect of the construction of its landfill cells; claim for future expenditure in respect of amounts included in its deduction calculations; whether SARS was entitled to levy understatement penalty (USP) |
| 30 November 2021 | 0059/2019 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: Uniform Rules of the High Court: whether SARS “made a capturing/processing error where the business kilometres travelled were not correctly captured for the taxpayer’s tax return”; whether a request for further documents in terms of rule 8 was compulsory |
| 19 November 2021 | 2020/95 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration; Uniform Rules of the High Court: whether the applicant is entitled to the final relief in the form of default judgment because the respondent did not file rule 31 statement |
| 18 November 2021 | IT 25117 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 Uniform Rules of the High Court | Tax administration; Uniform Rules of the High Court: whether the step followed by the respondent is irregular |
| 19 October 2021 | 25330; 25331 and 25256 | Tax Administration Act, 1962 | Tax administration: whether SARS correctly invoked uniform rule 30; whether SARS has demonstrated prejudice |
| 15 October 2021 | IT 24790 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: whether appellant was entitled in 2015 income tax return to deduct from gross income the amounts it contends it incurred pertaining to accrued leave and bonus pay, notice pay and severance pay; and whether a deduction of the leave and bonus pay liabilities is precluded by section 7B |
| 8 October 2021 | VAT 2060 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: whether SARS or the fiscus was left in a financially neutral position; whether there was an agreement concluded between the Venture and AB and CD, which satisfies the proviso to subsection 22(3)(b); whether the conversion of short-term debts to long-term liabilities between two companies constituted payment of the short-term debts |
| 17 September 2021 | IT 24596 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: whether the appellant is not liable to pay the additional tax, as it avers, it must prove that the net income of appellant are excluded because appellant is a foreign business establishment; whether section 9D(9)(b) is applicable or not; to make that determination it must be decided whether the business conducted by AB satisfies the terms of the provisions of section 9D(9)(a) |
| 5 August 2021 | IT 24988 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: for court to decide against the decision of the respondent to impose an understatement penalty in terms of Act; the UP was levied in relation to the 2014 year of assessment at the rate of 25% |
| 16 July 2021 | 14232 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: whether income was to revenue or capital in nature |
| 21 June 2021 | VAT 1908 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: whether the appellant was correct in deeming a supply as exempt |
| 18 June 2021 | IT 24888 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: sections 222 and 223; whether the respondent was entitled to charge a 25% understatement penalty on the taxpayer |
| 4 June 2021 | 24682 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether the appellant was entitled to a continuance of the matter |
| 31 May 2021 | IT 25242 | Income Tax Act, 1962 Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Income tax: whether the Appellant was entitled to deductions and waiver of penalty |
| 31 May 2021 | 0092/2019 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration; Tax Court Rule 42: whether the applicant was entitled to amend its objection |
| 18 May 2021 | IT 25390 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: section 30; whether the Appellant was entitled to be deemed to be a PBO |
| 23 April 2021 | 13395 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: whether the appellant was liable for capital gains tax |
| 31 March 2021 | IT 13178 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: whether the appellant should be taxed on unexplained deposits in its bank account |
| 30 March 2021 | VAT 1999 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax Administration; Value-added tax; Rules of the Court: whether the appellant could amend its Rule 32 Statement |
| 18 March 2021 | IT 24918 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: capital gains; whether the appellant was liable for capital gains tax under section 25B of the Income Tax Act |
| 25 February 2021 | IT 24606 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: whether the appellant could claim capex in terms of section 15(b) of the Income Tax Act |
| 27 January 2021 | IT 24578 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration; Rules of the Court: whether the appellant was entitled to amend its Rule 32 Statement |
| 6 January 2021 | IT 14305 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: separation of issues; whether the appellant’s application to separate issues under Rule 33(4) should be allowed |
| 2020 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Delivery | Case Number | Applicable Legislation | Keywords |
| 11 December 2020 | Estate Duty Act, 1955 | Estate duty: separation of issues; whether certain Kruger coins should be valued under section 5(1) of the Estate Duty Act | |
11 December 2020 | VAT 1715 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: output tax; commission; airline; whether the appellant was liable for output tax in respect of commissions on airline tickets |
| 9 December 2020 | 14184 (IT) 14186 (PAYE) 1544 (VAT) | Income Tax Act, 1962 Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Income tax; value-added tax: whether the appellant was liable for understatement penalty (USP) |
| 26 November 2020 | VAT 1904 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: whether the appellant was entitled to the deduction it claimed under section 16(3)(c) of the VAT Act |
| 25 November 2020 | 24674 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: taxpayer in assessed loss position; SARS in determining taxpayer’s liability to tax imposed an understatement penalty (USP) for no reasonable grounds for tax position taken. Dispute:
|
| 12 November 2020 | IT 24502; IT 24503 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: strike out; novation; whether the appellants’ application to strike out and dismiss the respondent’s Rule 31 Statement should be allowed |
| 27 October 2020 | 13230 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Income tax: gross income; whether the respondent was correct to include in the appellant’s gross income certain foreign income amounts |
| 20 October 2020 | 0035/2018 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether the appellant, by way of a Rule 56 application, was entitled to judgment against the respondent |
| 1 September 2020 | 0085/2019 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether the appellant was entitled to the relief it sought in terms of filing a late objection |
| 31 August 2020 | 14302 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether the appellant was entitled to the relief sought under a Rule 56 application wherein it sought to compel the respondent to discover certain documents |
| 3 June 2020 | 0034/2019 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether the appellant was entitled to the relief sought under a Rule 56 application wherein it argued that SARS failed to comply with a court order |
| 1 June 2020 | 0037/2019 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether the Appellant was entitled to the relief it sought in terms of a Rule 52 application |
| 27 May 2020 | 24720 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: whether an alteration of an assessment is competent |
| 29 April 2020 | VAT 1712 (Fringe benefit) | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: fringe benefit; whether the Appellant was liable for output tax in respect of fringe benefits under section 18(3) of the VAT Act |
| 29 April 2020 | VAT 1712 (Supply) | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: supplies; whether the Appellant was entitled to input tax claims and whether it met the requirement of “supplies”” in the VAT Act |
| 27 March 2020 | 13720 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: revised assessments; USP; methodology; whether the respondent was entitled to revise certain assessments and impose a USP on the appellant |
| 3 March 2020 | VAT 1626 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: input tax; whether the appellant was entitled to certain input tax deductions |
| 25 February 2020 | VAT 1857 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Value-added tax: input tax; whether the respondent was entitled to reduce the Appellant’s notional input tax claims The respondent (being the appellant in the case a quo) withdrew from the appeal. A notice of withdrawal of opposition and abandonment of judgment in favour of SARS was therefore issued by the high court under section 141 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011. |
| 24 February 2020 | 13950 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Tax administration: postponement; whether the appellant’s application for a postponement should be entertained |
