Constitutionality and the Income Tax Act – revisited
In 1994, after the 1993 Constitution had been adopted, the Katz Commission questioned the constitutionality of some provisions of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of this article is, firstly, to follow up on the progress made in amending the provisions concerned and, secondly, to establish reasons for the lack of success achieved by taxpayers who attack the constitutionality of certain provisions. Some progress has been made, but in this article, the author argues that SARS should amend section 104(2) of the Act. The establishment of a specialist ombudsman’s office is also proposed. Such an office that could assist taxpayers to enforce their constitutional rights against the Commissioner is the essential missing element.
Constitution,Ombudsman,Constitutional attack,Privacy,Constitutionality,Reverse onus of proof,Search and Seizure, Fundamental rights
Section 240A of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (as amended) requires that all tax practitioners register with a recognized controlling body before 1 July 2013. It is a criminal offense to not register with both a recognized controlling body and SARS.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO REGISTER
The Act requires that a minimum academic and practical requirments be set to register with a controlling body. Click here for the minimum requirements of SAIT.