Tag: Tax Consulting SA

On 26 June 2026, the Western Cape High Court, in Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) vs Meiring Citrus (Pty) Ltd, upheld SARS's appeal. The court held that a R10 million self-insurance deduction was not allowable. What began with a R10 million tax deduction claimed in Meiring Citrus' 2017 year of assessment ultimately resulted in years of verifications.

On 23 June 2026, the Constitutional Court delivered a unanimous judgment in Lueven Metals (Pty) Ltd vs Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS). The court confirmed that the zero-rating of gold under section 11(1)(f) of the Value Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 (VAT Act) does not apply to second-hand or recycled gold that has already undergone prior manufacturing.

Can a business claim a tax deduction for money it pays as a bribe or kickback? Under section 23(o) of the Income Tax Act, the answer is no. Kickbacks are not tax deductible. The provision was introduced in 2005 to support South Africa’s anti-corruption efforts. It denies a tax deduction for any payment that amounts to corrupt activity under our main anti-corruption statute, the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 (the PCCAA).

More and more high-net-worth South Africans living abroad realise that the assumption that physical emigration ends their South African tax exposure is not merely incorrect. It is also becoming increasingly expensive. Many expatriates become aware of the consequences only when they receive an unexpected and substantial assessment from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). The reality is that leaving the country is not a tax strategy. South Africans continue to make what can be described as a “silent exit”.

Two recent High Court judgments, in which the powers of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) came under close scrutiny, have delivered a clear message. Despite the wide powers granted under the Tax Administration Act, No. 28 of 2011 (TAA), those powers remain discretionary. However, they are not unfettered. This marks an important instance of court scrutiny of SARS’ powers.

Time has run out for non-compliant trusts. Since 4 May 2026, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) has imposed administrative penalties on trusts with outstanding tax returns. SARS levies these penalties monthly. In some cases, penalties may reach R16,000 per outstanding return.

Foreign nationals who own fixed property in South Africa and derive rental income from it are increasingly facing new compliance hurdles when accessing or transferring those funds. Recent feedback from multiple South African banks indicates tighter access to non-resident bank accounts when account holders do not meet additional tax compliance requirements. As a result, foreign property owners could temporarily find themselves out of pocket under these new banking and tax rules.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued VAT Ruling: VR 020 – Consideration (VR 020) on 28 April 2026. The ruling addresses the Value-Added Tax (VAT) treatment of deposits received by game reserves when guests forfeit those deposits after cancelling bookings.

Two recent Tax Court judgments produced markedly different outcomes. These outcomes raised questions about condonation in the court. In particular, they highlighted uncertainty in how condonation principles apply. Practitioners often recognise this tension. However, case law rarely states it so directly.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) recently surpassed R2 trillion in net revenue collection for the 2025/26 fiscal year. This milestone marks the highest revenue collected in the country’s democratic era. It also highlights SARS’s commitment to effective tax administration. In particular, SARS continues to enforce sanctions for non-compliance through SARS’ targeted compliance programmes. Despite several challenges, SARS has maintained strong performance.