A significant new Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment may materially change the way taxpayers approach disputes with SARS. In Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Poulter, delivered on 12 May 2026, the SCA confirmed that taxpayers are not restricted to using attorneys or advocates in the Tax Court. Properly authorised non-lawyers may also represent them.

The judgment is important not only for taxpayers, but also for accountants, tax practitioners, family representatives and advisers who often play a significant role in tax disputes.

The Background

The dispute arose after the taxpayer, Ms Candice-Jean Poulter, appealed a SARS assessment for the 2018 tax year. She authorised her father, Gary van der Merwe, through a power of attorney, to represent her in the Tax Court.

SARS objected because Mr Van der Merwe was a layperson, not a legal practitioner. The Tax Court agreed with SARS and ruled that only admitted attorneys or advocates could represent a taxpayer in Tax Court.

The Western Cape High Court later overturned that decision, holding that Mr Van der Merwe was wrongly excluded. SARS then appealed to the SCA.

The SCA has now dismissed SARS’s appeal and confirmed that the taxpayer’s representative did not need to be a lawyer.

What Was the Real Legal Issue?

At the heart of the case was a deceptively simple but legally significant simple question: Can a taxpayer appoint a non-lawyer to represent them in Tax Court?

SARS argued that the answer was ‘no’. It relied heavily on the Legal Practice Act, which only grants attorneys and advocates rights of appearance in courts, as well as previous judgments emphasising that generally lay persons cannot represent others in courts of law.

However, the SCA adopted a more nuanced approach grounded in statutory interpretation.

Interpretation of the Tax Administration Act and Tax Court Rules

The court carefully analysed the Tax Administration Act (TA Act) and the Tax Court Rules. It noted that whilst the legislation specifically regulates how SARS officials may appear in Tax Court, it does not impose an equivalent restriction on taxpayers. Crucial to this, there is no express requirement that a taxpayer’s representative must be a legal practitioner.

Historical context

Importantly, the court also examined the historical position. Before 2017, section 125(2) of the TA Act explicitly allowed a taxpayer or the taxpayer’s representative to appear in Tax Court. Although that subsection was later deleted, the SCA found that Parliament never intended to abolish taxpayer representation by non-lawyers.

The court even referred to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the amendment legislation, which described the deletion as merely a ‘technical correction’.

This historical analysis reinforced the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to limit taxpayer representation to legal practitioners.

Practical Reality Won the Day

One of the most compelling parts of the judgment is the court’s recognition of how tax disputes actually function in practice.

The SCA acknowledged that taxpayers frequently rely on accountants, auditors, bookkeepers and tax advisers to deal with SARS, because tax law is highly specialised. In many cases, those professionals have a deeper understanding of the factual and technical aspects of a dispute than litigation attorneys, particularly in specialised tax matters. 

The court effectively accepted that restricting representation only to lawyers would create unnecessary barriers to access to justice, especially for ordinary taxpayers who may not be able to afford full legal teams.

Constitutional Considerations

That constitutional dimension played a key role in the decision. The SCA stressed that legislation must be interpreted in a manner that promotes the spirit and objects of the Bill of Rights, including the right of access to courts and the broader imperative to promote fairness and accessibility in legal processes.

Allowing non-lawyer representation in Tax Court was viewed by the SCA as consistent with these constitutional values.

Is the Tax Court Really a ‘Court’?

The judgment also ventured into deeper constitutional territory.

The SCA agreed with the High Court that the Tax Court is not a ‘court of law’ in the ordinary constitutional sense as contemplated by section 166 of the Constitution. Instead, it performs a specialist administrative function within the tax system.

That finding matters because many of SARS’ arguments relied on rules applicable to traditional courts. Once the Tax Court was viewed differently, the foundation for excluding non-lawyers became much weaker.

The SCA further noted that the Tax Court is created on an ad hoc basis by presidential proclamation under the TA Act, rather than being permanently established by the Constitution or Parliament, in the same manner as the High Courts or Magistrates’ Courts.

While some legal commentators may debate this aspect of the ruling in future, the practical outcome is clear: the Tax Court remains more flexible regarding representation than ordinary courts.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision is likely to have an immediate impact on tax litigation in South Africa.

First, it confirms that taxpayers may continue using trusted tax practitioners or advisers in Tax Court proceedings without necessarily briefing attorneys or advocates for every appearance.

Second, it may reduce litigation costs for taxpayers, particularly in smaller disputes where legal fees could otherwise become disproportionate to the tax amount in issue.

Third, the judgment provides greater clarity after years of uncertainty created by earlier decisions involving Mr Van der Merwe and related litigation.

Importantly, however, the judgment does not mean that legal representation has become unnecessary. Complex tax disputes involving constitutional questions, technical interpretation or appeals to higher courts will still require experienced legal counsel.

Conclusion

This SCA’s ruling marks a significant development in South African tax law. By confirming that taxpayers may be represented by authorised non-legal practitioners in Tax Court, the court has aligned legal procedure with practical reality and constitutional principles.

This ruling enhances access to justice, reduces barriers to participation in tax disputes, and acknowledges the critical role played by tax professionals outside the legal profession.

Ultimately, the judgment reinforces a simple but important principle: in a specialised forum like the Tax Court, accessibility and practical fairness should prevail over rigid procedural formalism. Taxpayers must have flexibility in choosing who represents them in disputes with SARS.

The judgment will likely be welcomed by tax practitioners and smaller taxpayers alike, particularly where the cost of full legal representation may otherwise discourage legitimate disputes with SARS. That said, taxpayers should still exercise caution — as the old saying goes: ‘goedkoop koop is duur koop’. Complex tax disputes often require experienced legal expertise.