South Africa: Settlements with SARS

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

South Africa: Settlements with SARS

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

It has been widely reported that the South African Revenue Service (SARS) is making application for the sequestration of Julius Malema, the head of the Economic Freedom Front political party, after the 'collapse' of a settlement agreement between the parties. These reports state that Malema did not correctly disclose the source of the funds used to settle the tax debt which formed part of the agreement. In determining whether settlement is appropriate the Commissioner of SARS must consider a variety of factors including the potential costs of litigation to SARS and its likelihood of success, factual or evidentiary difficulties which would make litigation or alternative dispute resolution problematic, whether settlement is in the best interest of good management of the tax system, overall fairness and use of SARS' resources.

It is specifically stated that a person participating in a settlement procedure must disclose all relevant facts during the discussion phase of the process of settling a dispute. In addition a settlement is conditional upon full disclosure of material facts known to the person concerned at the time of the settlement.

A written agreement must then be concluded between the parties which includes details on, for example, how each issue is settled, relevant undertakings by the parties and arrangement for payment.

Section 148 of the Tax Administration Act provides that SARS is not bound by the terms of the written agreement if the taxpayer has failed to make full disclosure in settlement discussions or if there was fraud or misrepresentation of the facts. It is this point that SARS has allegedly raised in respect of its settlement agreement with Julius Malema.

In conclusion, while settlement should always be considered in a tax dispute, there are various risks associated with such process including the risk that the settlement agreement is subsequently not adhered to by SARS on the basis that material facts were not disclosed by the taxpayer or that there was fraud or misrepresentation of the facts.

Peter Dachs (pdachs@ensafrica.com)

ENSafrica – Taxand Africa

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Website: www.ensafrica.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Australia’s conservative opposition will repeal controversial tax agent reporting rules if elected in the country’s May general election
Shapley would be the fourth person to hold the job this year; in other news, UK tax advisory firm MHA raised fewer funds than expected from its London IPO
The US needs to be involved in pillar one for there to be more international acceptance of the project, Michael Masciangelo says
The UK regulator is investigating EY’s auditing of the national postal service as it relates to the high-profile Horizon scandal, which saw hundreds wrongfully convicted
The directive will extend cooperation and information exchange around pillar two, according to the Council of the EU
Audit engagement partner Christopher Voogd has also been hit with a £32,500 charge over the firm’s work with Stirling Water Seafield Finance
China’s largest overhaul of its tax administration system in 24 years, featuring enhanced enforcement powers, is underway, says Abe Zhao of FenXun Partners
However, the US president increased tariffs on imported Chinese goods to 125%; in other news, UK tax firm MHA expects to raise £102m from its London listing
A mere three firms accounted for more than 90% of top-up taxes paid, according to research from Deloitte
Taxpayers with Brazilian operations should revisit their withholding positions in light of updated US guidance, writes Rafael Benevides, senior tax counsel at Meta
Gift this article