Here’s a rule to remember: If you concede the foundation, you lose the building. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment is a masterclass in what happens when strategy fails before substance is even tested. It is dressed as a tax case. It is actually a governance case.
If SARS issues an assessment and says you owe tax, they expect you to pay it — even if you believe the assessment is wrong and are challenging it in the Tax Court. For businesspeople, that can mean crippling cash flow pressure long before a dispute is resolved. In a recent Gauteng High Court judgment, Ferreria v Commissioner for SARS (Case no 2024-067035; Pretoria High Court; on 2 February 2026), is a reminder that SARS’ powers are not unlimited.
Interpretation notes play an important role in the South African tax system, but they are often misunderstood. Businesses regularly encounter them when planning transactions or responding to queries from SARS, and the natural question is to what extent these documents should be followed.
A recent judgment of the Tax Court, now on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Oakleaf Investments Holdings 79 (Pty) Ltd t/a Lesedi Power Company), raises an important procedural question in South African tax litigation: to what extent may SARS reformulate its case during the appeal process without issuing a revised assessment?
Many taxpayers face the wrath of SARS when there is outstanding tax debt. SARS has a number of mechanisms to collect outstanding tax debt. One of them is to hold another person personally liable for the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debt.
In life, but more so in tax, you are the master of your destination. If you don’t declare income and are obstructive in a tax audit, your destination is SARS’ wrath.
The recent media ping-pong between Tshepo Lucky Montana (“Montana”) and the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has brought the country’s attention towards SARS’ obligation to protect taxpayer confidentiality and the very limited circumstances where SARS may disclose any information regarding taxpayers.
The Budget Speech of 2025 was not as devastating as initially expected with the rumours of the 2% VAT increase, although VAT did not remain untouched.
The postponement of the budget speech which was set to take place on Wednesday, 19 February 2025 has left the country questioning exactly what could have been in the budget that was so controversial that the speech could not go ahead but had to be postponed until 12 March 2025.
The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act, No. 28 of 2008 (as amended), (the Royalty Act) imposes the obligation on a person to 'pay a royalty for the benefit of the National Revenue Fund in respect of the transfer of a mineral resource extracted within the Republic'.
Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys' Johan Kotze and Jenifer Woker successfully defended Digicall Solutions (Pty) Ltd in its recent dispute against SARS. This Western Cape High Court case dealt with trafficking in tax losses.
Under the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, the word 'related' is now to be substituted by the word 'similar', so that the definition of interest will read "interest or similar finance charges". This change is more than likely to narrow the courts' previous interpretations.
Clarification on how interest on lump sum benefits should be treated.
Generally, the export of movable goods qualifies for VAT zero-rating. An exception can be found in section 11(1)(m) of the VAT Act, where movable goods are supplied to a customs controlled area enterprise or an Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) operator in South Africa.
When two people transact, they normally negotiate the terms in good faith, but things happen to transactions and the seller may agree to repay part of the purchase price to the purchaser.
As early as 1926 Judge Stratford held in Farrar's Estate v CIR that '[the] governing rule on interpretation is to endeavour to ascertain the intention of the law-maker from a study of the provisions of the enactment in question'.
Shepstone & Wylie (S&W) will not change its banking details. Any communication you receive stating we have done so will be false - please contact us immediately.
If you bank with Standard Bank, Nedbank, Investec, FNB or Absa Bank you are encouraged to pay us using the bank approved beneficiary: Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys.
If you don’t use the bank approved beneficiary option, you must always call us to verify our banking details before making any payment.
