CATEGORIES
- (1) Negotiating Tax Debt and Payment Arrangements with SARS
- (14)Accounting
- (2)Accounting for Income Tax
- (7)Administration of Estates
- (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
- (117)Corporate Tax
- (9)Customs and Excise
- (2)Deceased Estate
- (1)Deductions Pre-trade and prepaid expenses
- (1)Deferred tax assets and deferred tax on equity
- (1)Deregistration
- (2)Employer and Employee (PAYE and UIF Specific)
- (1)Estate Duty
- (8)Faculty News
- (2)Farming
- (142)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
- (8)Payroll
- (2)Practical Payroll
- (2)Provisional tax (Link with other Taxes)
- (1)SARS Dispute Resolution
- (4)SARS Issues
- (1)Salaried Employees
- (127)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
- (2)Tax Update
- (2)Tax implications of loans to trusts
- (1)Tax residence
- (1)Tax returns and payments
- (1)Transfer-Pricing
- (1)Trust Income / Gain Allocations
- (1)Trust types and income allocations
- (5)Trusts
- (66)VAT
- (3)VAT periods
- (1)Wear and tear allowances
- (1)Zero Rated
- Show All
SARS snuffs out Lion Match's "novel" application
- 16 April 2018
- Tax Administration
- Wesley Grimm
Important:
This article is based on tax law for the tax year ending 28 February 2019.
Author: Wesley Grimm
The Taxpayer, Lion Match Company Proprietary Limited, disposed of its shareholding in Kimberly Clark Group during 2008 and ascribed the market value to the shares as at 1 October 2001 as the base cost in determining its taxable capital gain on the disposal. The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) raised an additional assessment against the Taxpayer on 30 April 2013 for this and adjusted the base cost of the value of the shares, increasing in the Taxpayer's capital gain and taxable income.
The Taxpayer objected to the adjustment, which SARS disallowed. It then noted an appeal against the disallowance of its objection to the Tax Court, Durban. SARS then delivered its Rule 31 statement of the grounds of assessment and opposition to the appeal, in terms of the Rules promulgated under section 103 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (Rules). Instead of delivering its statement of grounds of appeal in terms of Rule 32, the Taxpayer launched a Rule 31(3) application and sought an order, inter alia, setting aside SARS' Rule 31 statement on the basis that the grounds constituted a "novation of the whole of the factual and/or legal basis of the additional assessment". The Tax Court dismissed the application, but granted the Taxpayer leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
The question on appeal, a la Beinish v Wixley 1997 2 SA 241 (A), was whether the taxpayer may place a particular decision before a court of appeal in isolation, and before the main proceedings have run their full course. In a judgment delivered on 27 March 2018, the SCA held that the decision of the Tax Court was not one that could be objected to and appealed against in terms of section 104(2) of the TAA. The Taxpayer had also argued that the application it launched should be likened to an exception, rather than an application to strike out, in terms of the High Court Rules and that when the Tax Court dismissed the application it spoke the final word on the issue of its jurisdiction.
Click here to read more.
This article first appeared on webberwentzel.com.