The Burden of Proof: An Essential Guide to SARS Verifications and Requests for Substantiating Documents

---

The Burden of Proof: An Essential Guide to SARS Verifications and Requests for Substantiating Documents

• 27 October 2025
• Tax Administration
• Yolisa Dyasi

Few phrases in tax administration inspire as much anxiety as “SARS verification.” For many taxpayers and practitioners alike, receiving a notice of verification or a request for relevant material can feel like stepping into an audit minefield—every document scrutinised, every number questioned, and every word weighed. Yet, at the heart of this process lies a simple but often misunderstood concept: the burden of proof.

Under South African tax law, particularly Section 102 of the Tax Administration Act, No. 28 of 2011 (TAA), the question of who must prove what is not merely procedural; it determines the outcome of disputes, verifications, and assessments. Understanding this principle, and how it interacts with the practical realities of SARS verifications, can be the difference between a compliant taxpayer and a costly compliance nightmare.

Understanding the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof refers to the obligation to establish the facts upon which a taxpayer relies to support their position regarding tax liability. In simple terms, if a taxpayer claims a deduction, exemption, or allowance, it is not for SARS to prove that the claim is invalid; it is for the taxpayer to prove that it is valid.

Section 102(1) of the TAA explicitly provides that the burden of proof rests on the taxpayer in any dispute concerning:

• The amount of taxable income or tax payable;
• The entitlement to any deduction, exemption, or allowance; and
• The rate of tax applicable.

This means SARS does not need to disprove a taxpayer’s claim; instead, the taxpayer must positively demonstrate, through records, documentation, and explanations, that their tax position is correct in law and in fact.

However, Section 103 of the TAA clarifies how this burden operates in practice. It provides that in any proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the person who asserts a particular fact, unless a tax Act provides otherwise. Thus, if a taxpayer asserts that an expense is deductible, the onus is on them to demonstrate that it meets the statutory criteria for deduction. Conversely, if SARS asserts fraud or misrepresentation, SARS bears that burden.

The implication is profound: tax compliance is not merely about filing returns; it is about being able to defend them.

Substantiation Is Not Just About Submitting Documents

A common misconception is that simply uploading a few invoices or bank statements to SARS will suffice when responding to a verification. Context matters.

Documents in isolation rarely tell a complete story. An invoice without an explanation of its business purpose, a contract without accompanying proof of payment, or a logbook without reference to actual travel schedules may leave SARS unconvinced, even if the expense was genuinely incurred.

When SARS issues a request for relevant material, it is seeking not just evidence but understanding. Taxpayers must take SARS on a guided tour of their reasoning, explaining why a deduction was claimed, how an allowance was calculated, and what legal provisions support it.

For example, in the case of a taxpayer claiming a home office deduction, it is not enough to submit an electricity bill and a floor plan. SARS must be shown how the space is used exclusively and regularly for trade, with reference to Section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act.

The golden rule is simple: never assume SARS will connect the dots for you. Provide the dots, connect them, and explain the picture they form.

The Illusion of ‘Common Sense’

In taxation, common sense isn’t always common. What may seem “obvious” to a taxpayer often has no bearing in tax law unless grounded in the relevant legislative provisions.

A classic example is the belief that “if I paid for it, it must be deductible.” This line of reasoning ignores that for an expense to qualify under Section 11(a), it must be incurred in the production of income and not be of a capital nature.

Similarly, taxpayers often assume that a particular allowance or rebate applies to their situation because “everyone does it.” But SARS does not operate on hearsay or industry custom; it operates on relevant legislation and accompanying interpretation notes.

Whenever making a claim—whether for medical expenses, depreciation, travel, or input VAT—it is vital to cite the legislative authority. This not only strengthens the taxpayer’s position during verification but demonstrates diligence that can influence how SARS views the taxpayer’s credibility. Legislation, not logic, is the language SARS speaks.

Preparing for Verifications: Practical Principles

In the world of verifications, preparation is prevention. The following principles can help taxpayers avoid unnecessary disputes or assessments:

1. Keep contemporaneous records

Taxpayers must maintain records for at least five years, as required by Section 29 of the TAA. These records should not merely exist; they should be organised and readily retrievable.

2. Substantiate before submission

A powerful rule of thumb: never press “submit” on a tax return if you cannot substantiate every figure immediately. This discipline ensures verifications do not turn into frantic document hunts and allows taxpayers to respond confidently within stipulated timelines.

3. Respond with clarity and completeness

When SARS requests substantiation, do not simply forward documents. Explain what each document proves, reference the applicable section of legislation, and show how it aligns with the claim. A short explanatory letter or summary can make a world of difference.

4. Stay professional and factual

Emotive or defensive responses do not help. SARS officials are guided by documentation and logic. Keep correspondence courteous, concise, and supported by evidence.

SARS’ Perspective: Why They Ask What They Ask

SARS verifications are not inherently punitive. They are part of SARS’ mandate to ensure compliance and verify the accuracy of returns before assessments are finalised.

However, SARS operates under resource constraints and relies heavily on risk-based algorithms that flag anomalies, such as unusual deductions, large VAT refunds, or discrepancies between employer declarations and employee tax certificates.

When SARS requests supporting documents, it is essentially saying: “Help us understand your return.” Many taxpayers interpret this as a confrontation rather than an opportunity to clarify. By proactively assisting SARS through structured explanations and evidence, verifications can often be prevented from escalating into audits, additional assessments, or prolonged disputes.

The Legal Consequences of Failing the Burden

Failing to discharge the burden of proof has significant implications. If SARS is not satisfied that a deduction or claim is substantiated, it is entitled to disallow it and issue an assessment accordingly. Once that happens, the taxpayer bears the onus in any objection or appeal to prove that the assessment is wrong—a much steeper hill to climb.

Non-compliance can also attract administrative penalties, and in cases of wilful misrepresentation, understatement penalties under Chapter 15 of the TAA.

In essence, the burden of proof is not just a technicality—it is a safeguard for SARS and a responsibility for taxpayers.

Tell Your Story Before Someone Else Does

In an era of data-driven compliance and automated assessments, taxpayers cannot afford to be passive participants in their own tax affairs. Every number declared, every deduction claimed, and every allowance calculated must withstand scrutiny.

Taxpayers must understand that SARS does not simply look for documents—it looks for coherence. The story those documents tell must align with the law and the taxpayer’s explanation.

Before filing a return, pause and ask: If SARS were to ask me to prove this tomorrow, could I? If the answer is “yes,” you have mastered the burden of proof. If not, remember: the real burden is not in proving what is true—it is in trying to prove what was never properly thought through.

Learn more by registering for our upcoming webinar on SARS verifications and proactive compliance.

0 COMMENTS

LEAVE A COMMENT