How do I complete a dispute for condonation iro the late submission of a dispute?
Important:
This answer is based on tax law year ending 28 February 2017.
Answer:
We accept that your request relates to a "notice of invalid objection" issued by SARS after the taxpayer had filed a notice of objection outside the period prescribed in the rules together with a request for condonation of late filing thereof.
The next step would then be for the taxpayer to file a new objection. This objection is really an objection against the decision by SARS not to condone the late filing of the objection.
The current practice generally prevailing is that a senior SARS official may extend the date for lodging an appeal by –
• 21 business days, if satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for the delay; or
• up to 45 business days, if exceptional circumstances exist that justify an extension beyond 21 business days.
We accept that the objection was made after the 30 plus 21 days. According to that practice “each case must be considered according to its own merits in order to determine whether the reason for requesting an extension of more than 21 business days is exceptional and therefore justifies the requested extension.”
SARS believes that, “although not directly relevant to section 104(5), section 218 nevertheless provides an indication of the type of things which, taking into account the particular facts and circumstances, may constitute exceptional circumstances for purposes of section 104(5). For example, exceptional circumstances may include –
• a natural or human-made disaster;
• a civil disturbance or disruption in services;
• a serious illness or accident; and
• serious emotional or mental distress.
The mere existence of one of these factors is not sufficient. The taxpayer would need to demonstrate that the factor was the reason for the delay.”
It is on the strength of that that SARS didn’t accept the reasons provided. This in itself, constitutes a decision by SARS and can be objected to.
The problem is that the tax court recently agreed with SARS. The following is an extract from Judge Satchwell’s decision:
“The lapse of time from mid December 2014 to June 2015 is not satisfactorily explained – let alone sufficiently to discharge the onus of proving ‘exceptional circumstances’.”