The Request for Reasons: A Critical Gateway in Tax Dispute Resolution under the Tax Administration Act

---

The Request for Reasons: A Critical Gateway in Tax Dispute Resolution under the Tax Administration Act

• 09 February 2026
• Tax Administration
• Theo Burrows

In the complex landscape of tax dispute resolution, the Request for Reasons (“RFRe”) stands as a pivotal procedural mechanism that shapes the trajectory of a tax dispute from its earliest stages. Although requesting reasons remains a procedural right rather than a legal obligation, it has evolved from an optional formality into a strategic necessity in the modernised SARS tax environment.

The RFRe now functions as both a shield against procedural surprise and a sword that constrains SARS’s ability to fundamentally alter the basis of an assessment at later stages of the dispute. This article examines the strategic importance of the RFRe, with particular emphasis on the constraint imposed by Rule 31(3), which limits SARS’s ability to reposition its case during appeal proceedings, and on the substantive requirements SARS must meet when furnishing reasons.

Note on Terminology:

Throughout this article, Rule 31(3) is referred to as the “grounds constraint” or “Rule 31(3) limitation”. This limitation prevents SARS from raising new grounds during appeal proceedings that were not disclosed in the reasons for assessment or the reasons for the decision on objection.

---

The Strategic Importance of Requesting Reasons

Preventing Surprises at the Appeal Stage

Rule 6 of the dispute resolution rules under the Tax Administration Act (“TAA”) grants taxpayers who are aggrieved by an assessment the right to request reasons before lodging an objection. Exercising this right ensures that the objection process is not reduced to a guessing exercise and guards against the emergence of new assessment grounds only at the appeal stage.

This procedural safeguard addresses a fundamental power imbalance. Without comprehensive reasons, objections may be formulated on an incomplete understanding of SARS’s rationale, only for additional grounds to surface later, when procedural remedies are narrower, more expensive, and more complex. The RFRe therefore operates as an intelligence-gathering mechanism, enabling taxpayers to mount an informed and comprehensive challenge to an assessment from the outset.

---

Timing and Procedural Requirements

The procedural framework governing requests for reasons seeks to balance administrative efficiency with fairness to taxpayers. An RFRe must be submitted within 30 business days from the date of assessment. To preserve objection rights, the request should ideally be submitted within this period; otherwise, an application for condonation for late objection may be required.

The request must be made in the prescribed form and manner, currently via the SARS eFiling platform or at a SARS branch office. Once a valid RFRe has been submitted, the period for lodging a notice of objection (“NOO”) is suspended and only commences once SARS has either provided the requested reasons or notified the taxpayer that adequate reasons have already been supplied.

---

SARS’s Obligations When Providing Reasons

Response Timeframes

SARS is subject to clear procedural constraints when responding to an RFRe. Where a senior SARS official determines that adequate reasons have already been provided — for example, in the assessment notice or accompanying correspondence — SARS must notify the taxpayer within 30 business days of receipt of the request, identifying the specific documents in which those reasons are contained.

Where adequate reasons have not yet been provided, SARS must furnish written reasons within 45 business days after delivery of the RFRe. These periods are not absolute. Rule 6(3) permits an extension of up to a further 45 business days if a senior SARS official is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, such as the complexity of the matter or the principle or amount involved. Crucially, SARS must notify the taxpayer of any such extension before the expiry of the initial 45-business-day period.

---

The Substance of Adequate Reasons

The quality of reasons is as important as their timeliness. Rule 6(5) requires SARS to provide reasons that include, where applicable, the:

• grounds of assessment referred to in section 42(6) or section 96(2) of the TAA;
• grounds for a decision not to remit an administrative non-compliance penalty;
• grounds for a decision not to remit a substantial understatement penalty; and
• grounds for any decision referred to in section 104(2) of the TAA.

The adequacy threshold is substantive rather than formalistic. Reasons must be sufficient to enable the taxpayer to understand the basis of the assessment and to formulate meaningful grounds of objection. This standard, articulated in Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Sprigg Investment 117 CC [2011] ZATC 1, requires clarity and completeness. Vague, generic, or conclusory statements do not meet SARS’s obligations. The reasons must reveal both the factual findings and the legal interpretations underpinning the assessment.

---

Remedies When Reasons Are Inadequate

Where the reasons provided are insufficient to enable a proper objection, tax practitioners may submit a follow-up request seeking clarification or further particulars. This informal engagement may resolve deficiencies without escalating the dispute. It is critical that the objection process remains effectively paused until SARS provides reasons that meet the prescribed requirements. SARS bears both a procedural and an administrative obligation in this regard, and failure to discharge it materially weakens its position.

If SARS fails to respond within the prescribed timeframes, practitioners may escalate the matter through SARS’s Complaints Management Office or, with appropriate caution, proceed to lodge an objection based on the information available.

---

Court Remedies for Inadequate Reasons

Where SARS persists in providing inadequate reasons, tax practitioners may apply to the Tax Court on notice of motion for declaratory relief. In terms of Rule 52, such applications must be brought within 20 business days of the action or inaction giving rise to the application and must be supported by affidavit evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of the reasons when measured against the Sprigg Investment standard.

---

The RFRe as a Strategic Tool

The RFRe should not be viewed as a mere procedural entitlement, but as a strategic instrument. By compelling early and comprehensive articulation of SARS’s position, the RFRe:

• Limits SARS’s flexibility: Rule 31(3) provides that the grounds stated in the reasons for assessment or decision may not be departed from in appeal proceedings. While SARS may elaborate on existing grounds, it may not introduce fundamentally new factual or legal bases at the Tax Court or High Court stage.
• Enables comprehensive objections: A full understanding of SARS’s reasoning allows taxpayers to address all relevant grounds in the initial objection.
• Establishes evidentiary baselines: The reasons create a record against which later shifts in position can be identified and challenged.
• Improves resource allocation: Early clarity allows taxpayers to deploy investigative and legal resources efficiently and proportionately.

---

Practical Challenges in the RFRe Process

Despite its importance, the RFRe process continues to present practical challenges, including:

• Response delays: Although SARS endeavours to meet prescribed timelines, delays do occur.
• Variable quality: The adequacy of reasons varies considerably, and practitioners frequently encounter reasons that require clarification or supplementation to meet the required standard.
• Vagueness: SARS has not implemented a formal internal mechanism to review the adequacy of reasons, leaving taxpayers to rely on escalation or court remedies despite judicial emphasis on the importance of compliance.

---

Conclusion

The RFRe represents far more than a procedural checkpoint in the tax dispute resolution process. It is a cornerstone mechanism promoting transparency, fairness, and procedural efficiency.

For tax practitioners, the RFRe provides the informational foundation necessary to challenge assessments effectively, while the Rule 31(3) constraint ensures that SARS cannot fundamentally reposition its case mid-dispute, causing procedural prejudice. For SARS, the obligation to provide comprehensive reasons within defined timeframes promotes disciplined decision-making and reduces the risk of disputes driven by inadequately articulated positions.

Practitioners who fail to utilise the RFRe strategically, or who accept inadequate reasons without challenge, risk procedural ambush at later stages. Conversely, those who insist on proper reasons and enforce the Rule 31(3) limitation place themselves — and their clients — in a far stronger position throughout the dispute resolution process.

To delve deeper into the strategic use of Requests for Reasons in tax dispute resolution, join the webinar where these issues will be examined in a practical context.

Click here to register.

0 COMMENTS

LEAVE A COMMENT