Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Similar Posts
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS: FROM EXCEPTION TO CASH-COW GRABBING NORM?
SARS can, in terms of section 95(1)(b) of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (TAA) raise an assessment based on an estimate if the taxpayer submits information to SARS that is either incorrect or inadequate. How SARS often prepare these estimates is by comparing deposits into the taxpayer’s bank account to turnover declared on the tax…
YES, YOU REALLY CAN MESS UP A SARS OBJECTION!
For a detailed further video explanation see my video on our Youtube Channel – Click Here The judgment of the Western Cape Tax Court in the matter of DR X and Dr X Inc v CSARS[1] (“the Dr X case”) appears to be a good example to explain how it is possible to screw up…
SARS INCORRECTLY ASSESSING A TAXPAYER
For a video explanation of this judgment see 3 parts below: Part 1 of 3 – Pear (Pty) Ltd vs CSARS (ITC146080) (Western Cape Tax Court) (5 December 2024) – Background Part 2 of 3 – Pear (Pty) Ltd vs CSARS (ITC146080) (Western Cape Tax Court) (5 December 2024) – The judgment on prescription Part…
TRUSTS ENTER THE SECTION 210 TAX PENALTY REGIME: MORE EXPANSION THAN REVOLUTION
There has been a great deal of noise about SARS’ trust penalties. On my reading, the real story is both simpler and more significant. SARS has not invented a new penalty. It has extended an old section 210 mechanism to a new class of taxpayer — trusts — at a time when revenue collection and…
THE ARROW THAT MISSED THE MARK?
In a recent judgment handed down by the Johannesburg tax court in Taxpayer Arrow v CSARS (IT45776), the court had to determine, amongst various other things, (a) whether SARS could lift the veil of prescription and (b) whether SARS’ was correct in imposing understatement penalties under the circumstances. Briefly, the background to the case was…
CONCOURT ON BONA FIDE INADVERTENT ERROR AND USP’s
The eagerly anticipated Constitutional Court judgment in Thistle case[1] has been delivered. Unfortunately, though, the court did not consider the meaning of the words “bona fide inadvertent error” because the court did not grant SARS leave to cross-appeal the judgment of the SCA insofar as USP’s are concerned. The question then is, where does that…
