The recent Tax Court decision in VAT 32666 may be marked “not reportable” and “not of interest to other judges”, but it could nevertheless become important in disputes involving loyalty schemes, cashback arrangements and conditional rebates.
Recent case law on diesel refunds under the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (the C&E Act), reveals an emerging tension in how courts may approach refunds and tax incentives.
The recent Western Cape High Court judgment in Ocean Ark Shipping Ltd and Another v C:SARS (April 2026) is likely to attract considerable attention within the maritime, logistics and energy sectors. The case concerns SARS’ detention and seizure of the tanker MT Essien in connection with alleged contraventions under the Customs & Excise Act, 1964 (‘the Act’) and Value-Added Tax Act, 1991, arising from coastwise trade operations in South African waters.
The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) is afforded wide powers in terms of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 as amended (“the Act”). These powers are often draconian and have serious financial consequences against those they are applied against.
The Gauteng High Court Directive (Directive) and Mediation Protocol (Protocol) introduced mandatory mediation in the Gauteng High Courts in April 2025. A year later, parties to disputes who are awaiting trial dates (and their attorneys) are still slow to hop onto the mandatory mediation bus.
The Competition Appeal Court issued a rare adverse costs order against the Competition Commission for acting ultra vires by issuing a divestiture directive against African Rainbow Capital (ARC) following the Fresh Produce Market Inquiry, and threatening that non-compliance with the directive could result in the Commission applying to the Competition Tribunal to make the divestiture directive an order.
In a rare loss for SARS, the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘SCA’) in Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (April 2026) provided valuable guidance for joint ventures in the mining sector participating in the diesel refund scheme.
South African businesses navigating merger applications and compliance frameworks are well-acquainted with the Competition Commission’s rigorous focus on transformation. This mandate is most visible in the merger space, where the Commission routinely requires merging parties to implement employee share ownership programmes (ESOPs) or transactions involving historically disadvantaged persons (HDPs) to promote a greater spread of ownership.
On 22 April 2026, the Constitutional Court handed down its first substantive interpretation of South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rules ("GAAR") since they were amended in 2006. In a long-awaited judgment, delivered almost eight years after the SARS audit began, the majority judgment significantly broadened the scope of SARS's GAAR powers.
In a recent US case, United States v. Heppner (No. 1:25 cr 00503 JSR), decided in the New York District Court, the court was asked to deal with a very modern legal question: what happens when someone involved in a criminal investigation communicates with a publicly available AI platform? More specifically, are those communications protected by the attorney-client privilege?
In today’s interconnected global economy, South African businesses frequently transact with international related parties. While these cross-border arrangements are essential for market alignment and growth, they fall squarely under the oversight of the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) in terms of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act.
When a taxpayer relocates abroad or emigrates, then from a tax perspective, it is referred to as ceasing to be a South African tax resident (not to be confused with citizenship). Ceasing to be a South African tax resident may, however, come with a tax cost. One of the most consequential and frequently misunderstood provisions facing South Africans who relocate abroad is the deemed disposal triggered by section 9H of the Income Tax Act. When you cease your South African tax residency, section 9H applies, and the tax consequences can be significant if you are not properly prepared.
In a recent judgment in the matter Lombard Insurance Company Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No. 7177/2022, Gauteng Division, Pretoria), the importance of the wording of a guarantee issued to the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) came to the fore.
South Africa is proud of its Constitution, which protects people’s rights and limits what the government can do. There are legal rules meant to support fairness, such as estoppel and legitimate expectation. However, these rules can sometimes put ordinary people at risk without them realising it. Because of this, people should be careful about trusting what government officials say unless they first get legal advice.
Section 13A of the Pension Funds Act No. 24 of 1956 (“PFA”) requires an employer of any member of a fund to make payment to the fund in full of any contribution, which in terms of the rules of the fund, is to be deducted from the member’s remuneration, and contribution for which the employer is liable in terms of the fund rules.
Case law often teaches more than legal principles—it reveals how litigation strategy, discipline, and judgment shape outcomes. Part A of Taxpayer EV v SARS is a striking example. Whilst the dispute concerned a seemingly minor procedural condonation in a tax dispute - a one-day late filing, the Court’s refusal highlights deeper lessons for all legal practitioners.
A recent Tax Court judgment highlights a growing tension in South African tax disputes: when SARS selects a ‘test case’ to resolve issues affecting hundreds of taxpayers, how much control do those taxpayers retain over their own appeals?
The recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Mining Pressure Systems (Pty) Ltd (565/2023) [2026] ZASCA 21 highlights the often-overlooked complexity of customs tariff classification — particularly where technical specifications intersect with legal interpretation.
We have increasingly and alarmingly been encountering instances where South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) officials and/or internal administrative appeal committees (“Appeal Committees”) are refusing to accept or hear appeals where taxpayers have elected not to be dealt with in terms of section 91 of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 as amended (“the Act”).
If you are a South African taxpayer with offshore interests, the landscape in which you operate is undergoing a fundamental shift. Increased international cooperation and enhanced domestic oversight means that the days of "offshore privacy" are largely behind us, as the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has strengthened its ability to detect undeclared foreign bank accounts, investments (including digital assets like cryptocurrency), and offshore asset-holding structures like companies and trusts. If you need to regularise your affairs, we propose that you consider SARS’ Voluntary Disclosure Program (“VDP”).
On 6 March 2026, ITAC published notice 7199 inviting the public to comment on proposed amendments to the International Trade Administration Act 71 of 2002 (“ITA Act”). ITAC has allowed the public 4 weeks from the date of publication of the Notice to submit comments regarding the proposed amendments.
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.