CATEGORIES
- (1) Negotiating Tax Debt and Payment Arrangements with SARS
- (31)Accounting
- (2)Accounting for Income Tax
- (1)Accounting for Income Tax
- (7)Administration of Estates
- (1)Advisory Services
- (1)Application of tax rates, s6(2) rebates
- (1)Assessed losses
- (4)Audit, Reviews & Other Services
- (9)Blogs
- (8)Capital Gains Tax
- (1)Capital Gains Tax - Individuals Tax
- (1)Capital Gains Tax Implications of Trusts
- (2)Case study: Home office expense
- (1)Case study: Travel allowances
- (1)Company Formations
- (1)Compliance
- (123)Corporate Tax
- (9)Customs and Excise
- (2)Deceased Estate
- (1)Deductions Pre-trade and prepaid expenses
- (1)Deregistration
- (2)Employer and Employee (PAYE and UIF Specific)
- (1)Estate Duty
- (1)Events / Webinars
- (9)Faculty News
- (2)Farming
- (152)Individuals Tax
- (1)Input - Customs Duty
- (3)Interest
- (13)International Tax
- (17)Legislation
- (1)Low interest rate loans and loan subsidies
- (1)Nature of the rights of beneficiaries
- (1)Notional input tax
- (9)Payroll
- (2)Practical Payroll
- (2)Provisional tax (Link with other Taxes)
- (2)SARS Dispute Resolution
- (4)SARS Issues
- (1)Salaried Employees
- (134)Tax Administration
- (2)Tax Administration Part 2B: Resolving Problems with SARS using the Tax Ombud
- (1)Tax Administration Part 3B Dispute Resolution - Objection and appeal
- (3)Tax Update
- (1)Tax implications of loans to trusts
- (1)Tax residence
- (1)Tax returns and payments
- (2)Transfer-Pricing
- (1)Trust Income / Gain Allocations
- (1)Trust types and income allocations
- (6)Trusts
- (70)VAT
- (3)VAT periods
- (1)Wear and tear allowances
- (1)Wills, Estates & Trusts
- (1)Zero Rated
- (1)eFiling
- Show All
A taxpayer’s unfortunate experience with SARS
- 06 May 2020
- Tax Administration
- Heinrich Louw
Tuesday, 22 November 2016
Important:
This article is based on tax law for the tax year ending 28 February 2017.
Author: Heinrich Louw
On 21 October 2016 judgment was handed down by the High Court (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) in the matter of BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (as yet unreported).
Briefly, the applicant (Applicant) was a vendor for purposes of Value-added Tax (VAT). The respondent, being the South African Revenue Service (SARS), had made a finding that the Applicant did not pay certain amounts of VAT due in respect of the October 2011 to February 2012 VAT periods.
As a result, SARS levied penalties and interest in respect of the amounts not paid.
However, on the facts, it appeared that the Applicant had made payment as required, but for some unknown reason SARS had not correctly allocated the amount paid.
The Applicant presented proof of payment to SARS, but SARS still insisted that the penalties and interest should be paid. The Applicant paid the amounts under protest, and proceeded to bring an application in the High Court.
SARS did not at first indicate any intention to oppose the application, and eventually consented to an order setting aside the finding of non-payment and that the penalties and interest be remitted. SARS also consented to costs on an attorney-client scale, and costs of senior counsel.
However, the matter did come to be heard, and SARS was represented by counsel who sought only to oppose a limited issue: whether the Applicant should be entitled to interest in respect of the amounts that it had paid under protest and which should now be remitted.
Based on the decision in Shuttleworth v South African Reserve Bank 2015 (1) SA 586 (SCA), the court held that the Applicant was entitled to interest.
In the Shuttleworth case the court confirmed that amounts paid under protest can be recovered under the condictio indebiti, together with interest.
The court also cited s187, s188 and s190 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011, which provides for interest to run on refundable amounts.
Accordingly, the court granted an order to the effect that SARS must pay interest a tempore morae on the amounts paid by the Applicant under protest.
This article first appeared on cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com.