South Africa: Tax dispute resolution

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: Tax dispute resolution

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

In developed markets, major tax litigation is principally run by law firms. Fortunately, over the last decade, various South African law firms have built the necessary capacity to run tax dispute resolution matters from the first South African Revenue Service (SARS) query to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein. It is important to realise that the dispute resolution process starts with the first SARS query. The response must be drafted in a manner which considers the possibility of the end game being witnesses giving evidence under cross-examination in court.

Therefore, any incorrect factual allegation in the response to the query, however innocently made, may come back to bite the taxpayer later in the dispute resolution process. In addition it is important that any factual statement can be proved by the taxpayer. This requires an understanding of who the relevant witnesses may be, where they are and what they are going to be able to say to support the various factual allegations in the response to SARS.

In respect of the court process, no-one wants to go to court. It is costly, time consuming and absorbs senior management resources. There are plenty of opportunities to settle a tax dispute matter before court. These include the alternative dispute resolution process as well as other settlement meetings with SARS.

An understanding of the tax technical aspects of the dispute by the taxpayer is simply not sufficient at these meetings. They also require people skilled in dispute resolution and with a proper understanding of the prospects of success at trial. For example, it is not possible to understand whether a proposed settlement is a good or bad settlement for the taxpayer unless it has an understanding of its prospects of success at trial. This, in turn, requires an understanding not only of how strong the tax technical position of the taxpayer is in relation to the tax dispute, but also the ability of the taxpayer to prove its case through its witnesses.

South African taxpayers are now following the rest of the developed world in understanding the complexity of the tax dispute process and using law firms to provide the relevant expertise in these matters.

Peter Dachs (pdachs@ens.co.za)

ENSafrica – Taxand

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Website: www.ens.co.za

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

India’s budget changes goods and services tax rules; UK private school VAT challenge fast-tracked
It is understood that the US has vowed to oppose any outcome from talks taking place at the UN
It’s the second year in a row that RSM’s tax business has posted fee income growth above 10%
Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Gift this article