All Posts

Die SAID het my onlangs in kennis gestel dat hulle die uitbetaling van my belastingkrediet weerhou, omdat my opgawe vir 2015, na bewering uistaande was, alhoewel die opgawe reeds 10 jaar gelede betyds ingedien was. Alhoewel daar regtens geen grondslag is vir hierdie houding nie, wil dit voorkom asof hierdie ‘n gereelde taktiek is van die belastinggaarder, om ‘n belastingbetaler to dwing om uitstaande opgawes in te dien, deur te weier om ‘n krediet uit te betaal. In terme van

Die SAID gebruik gereeld beramings van aanslae, as deel van hulle arsenaal, en dit blyk asof die belastingpubliek kleitrap met die betrokke regsbeginsels. In terme van hierdie artikel, kan die SAID ‘n beraming van aanslag uitreik: (a), waar’n belastingpligtige versuim om ‘n opgawe in te dien; (b) waar ‘n belastingpligtige ‘n opgawe of relevante inligting indien wat òf verkeerd, òf onvolledig is, of (c) waar die belastingpligtige versuim het om dokumentêre bewyse aan die SAI

After issuing an assessment to me, which reflected a credit, SARS recently informed me that it would not pay that amount to me, because my provisional tax return for 2015, is apparently outstanding, even though the return was indeed submitted. There is no legal basis for such a decision. In terms of section 190 of the Tax Administration Act, SARS is only authorised to withhold payment of a refund, or a credit, until its verification, inspection, audit or criminal investigatio

Since the promulgation of the Income Tax Act in 1962, the South African tax courts have confirmed on numerous occasions that to claim the deduction of expenditure in the calculation of the taxpayers income tax liability, he, or she, or it, is, amongst other things, obliged to prove that it incurred an unconditional liability to pay that expense in that particular year of assessment, even if the expense is paid in a later year of assessment. It is safe to say that this is sett