Section 5(3)(a) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (the Act) provides far-reaching relief by permitting a party to obtain prejudgment security for a claim which may or may not be determined within the jurisdiction of a South African court.
The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has hit a taxpayer with a R3.6 million tax bill, including a R2 million penalty for fraudulent tax return filings.
The general position is that SARS bears the burden of proving that an estimated assessment is reasonable, given that the estimated assessment was issued by SARS based on information at its disposal.
The decision is significant not only for tax practitioners, but also for any business that could face a SARS audit or an invasive search-and-seizure operation.
The judgment in IT 77151 [10 April 2026] is about far more than technical tax compliance. It signals a decisive shift in how SARS, supported by international information-sharing mechanisms, is approaching corporate structures linked to corruption-risk transactions.
Beyond the factual history of corruption and procurement irregularity, however, the judgment raises a more difficult legal question: When a contract is declared void ab initio, can its tax consequences nevertheless survive
South Africans with unused retirement contributions could lose valuable tax savings if they use them incorrectly, with the balance potentially worth up to 45% in tax relief, depending on how it is applied.
Women in law are rewriting the rules of a profession once dominated by men and they are making sure the next generation does not have to walk the path alone.
The proposal by Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka that perpetrators of sextortion be charged with corruption has sparked debate among experts about the effectiveness of this legal strategy.
South Africa plans to replace the strict 20% related-party transaction rule for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) with a domestic transfer pricing system.
Women now make up the majority of partners at Shepstone Wylie Attorneys, with many occupying senior leadership positions a sign of the growing influence of women within South Africa's legal profession and the specialised field of maritime and logistics law.
The April 2026 Western Cape High Court judgment in Ocean Ark Shipping Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service [2026] is likely to attract considerable attention within the maritime, logistics and energy sectors.
The court found that SARS failed to demonstrate that it had properly considered evidence submitted by QI and did not provide adequate reasons for its decisions, rendering the process procedurally irrational.
This is particularly relevant to taxpayers, practitioners and courts alike, given the complexity surrounding what constitutes a deductible “loss” in these circumstances and the timing of when such a deduction may properly be claimed. The case examines whether the loss of a statutory refund claim through prescription can amount to a deductible loss for income tax purposes.
Experts say cyberbullying and online harassment have become mammoth challenges in South Africa, shifting rapidly from minor digital nuisances into serious legal and psychological battlegrounds.
This July, millions of South Africans were greeted with an unexpected surprise in their inboxes and SMS notifications — their tax returns had already been prepared for them by the South African Revenue Service (SARS). For many, this shift to auto-assessments has felt like a welcome relief from the burdensome wait, lengthy queues, and often complex paperwork associated with filing taxes. However, as the excitement settles, many are left wondering: can I really trust a tax assessment I didn’t prepare myself?
A recent court ruling has clarified when taxpayers can avoid old customs duty claims from the South African Revenue Service (SARS), giving businesses a stronger defence against late demands.
The Supreme Court has hit SARS with a R35 million fine, ruling that the taxman cannot issue tax demands without properly considering the evidence, giving reasons, and following fair administrative procedures.
A Western Cape High Court judgment has delivered a clear message to taxpayers and their advisors: in tax disputes, process is not a formality – it is the gateway to being heard.
A tax court judgment of December 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?
Case law often teaches more than legal principles it reveals how litigation strategy, discipline, and judgment shape outcomes, Taxpayer EV v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service IT is a striking example.
Recent case law on diesel refunds under the Customs and Excise Act, the C8cE Act reveals an emerging tension in how courts may approach refunds and tax incentives.
South Africa has yet to see a meaningful increase in maritime enforcement activity or economic benefit despite the rerouting of global vessel traffic around the Cape of Good Hope since late 2023.
A judgment of the Megawatt Park, Johannesburg Tax Court in February 2025 (IT25209), now on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (Oakleaf Investments Holdings 79 (Pty) Ltd t/a Lesedi Power Company v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service), 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?
In a rare loss for SARS, the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘SCA’) in Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd vCSARS (April 2026) provided valuable guidance for joint ventures in the mining sector participating in the diesel refund scheme.
SARS suffered a setback as the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Glencore and confirmed that joint ventures can qualify for diesel refunds based on operational reality rather than strict legal form.
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 taxpayer1s ability to amend their case during an appeal.
On Tuesday's parliament portfolio committee on communications and digital technologies hosted a roundtable with podcasters and stakeholders on the rapid growth of digital entrepreneurship and how to create a governance framework that protects the public interest, the safety of minors and the integrity of South Africa's democratic discourse.
A recent Tax Court ruling confirmed that when SARS selects a test case, affected taxpayers have little control over disputes that may determine their own tax bill.
Following the tragic death of 20-year-old stewardess Paige Bell in the Bahamas last year, her family is seeking justice and campaigning for crucial reforms in the superyacht industry to better ensure crew welfare and safety.
The debate surrounding the ban on social media for children under 16 has intensified globally, with legal experts and stakeholders weighing in on the implications for young users' safety and well-being.
The question as to whether SARS can condone noncompliance was entertained by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in April 2025.
As many have experienced, the powers afforded to SARS officials in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (the CEA), are very intimidating. Imagine finding oneself in the following situation.
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.
Predominantly in the context of high-risk products, such as tobacco, being exported or in transit through South Africa, the question frequently arises as to whether the goods were indeed exported. Over time, illicit trade is costing the fiscus billions of rand, and it is therefore understandable if the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (“the Commissioner” or “SARS”) examines or questions the actual export of such goods. However, SARS cannot disregard or reject compelling evidence of the export in order to claim duties, penalties, and forfeiture amounts.
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.