A recent decision of the Tax Court in ABC v C:SARS highlights an important principle in South African tax administration: Where SARS communicates ambiguously with taxpayers, the consequences of that ambiguity may not necessarily fall upon the taxpayer.
According to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the answer is no. In Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Erasmus (handed down on 5 March 2026), the court ruled that SARS cannot fundamentally alter the factual basis of a GAAR assessment once it has already been issued.
A recent Tax Court judgment has provided useful guidance on the procedural principles applicable to applications to strike out allegations contained in pleadings in tax litigation. This case highlights the importance of relevance in determining whether impugned statements should remain part of the record and underscores the strategic role of pleadings in disputes involving transfer pricing and time-bar defences.
The 2026 Budget has been widely welcomed as prudent, disciplined and even “market-friendly”. Gross tax revenue for 2025/26 has been revised upwards by R21.3 billion, and personal income tax brackets have finally been adjusted for inflation after two years of bracket creep.
On 1 January 2019, the national minimum wage first came into effect, flowing from the National Minimum Wage Act 9 of 2018 (“NMWA”). The primary reason for the national minimum wage being implemented was for the protection of workers from earning unreasonably low wages.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) delivered a unanimous judgment in Baseline Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service on 24 February 2026, providing definitive guidance on the limits of a taxpayer’s ability to amend their case during an appeal. The ruling clarifies the scope of Rule 32(3) of the Tax Court Rules, confirming that while taxpayers have some flexibility, they cannot use an appeal to introduce fundamentally new cases that target parts of an assessment never previously challenged.
The National Budget Speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, Enoch Godongwana, was well received by financial markets. From a customs and excise perspective, it had no surprises in store for importers, exporters and manufacturers of excisable goods. The usual suspects, i.e. sin taxes, were increased in line with inflation.
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.
On 16 January 2026, the Constitutional Court delivered an important judgment for the fuel industry in Tholo Energy Services CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service Case CCT 252/24. The decision addresses the removal of fuel levy goods (‘fuel”) to Lesotho, being a BLNE member state. Although the decision confirms that fuel levy and Road Accident Fund (RAF) levy refunds are subject to strict statutory compliance, it also applies to the refund of excise duty and levies in respect of exports to non-BLNE countries. The decision therefore provides clarity on several long-debated issues affecting cross-border fuel supplies.
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?
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.