Minutes: SARS Stakeholders' meeting Pretoria 18 September 2013
30 September 2013
Posted by: Author: SARS
1. WELCOME & APOLOGIES
The chairperson opened the meeting, welcomed
everyone present and requested all attendees to introduce themselves.
The agenda was confirmed and adopted with few
points of discussion added.
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
3.1 SARS Correspondence:
are still receiving calls from SARS for compliance, and when they request that the
information be sent in writing, the compliance team members refuse, and insist
that they do not send e-mails. Sometimes they send faxes which are not helpful
because there are no contact details on the fax.
is not that the practitioners do not want to comply but for them to advice their
clients they must have something in writing.No way forward was given however SARS will
communicate internally and discuss the matter so as to reach way forward on how
best the matter can be resolved. Practitioners were also adviced to request the
name of the division the caller is phoning from so that when the matter is
addressed it be can addressed directly with that particular division /section.
3.2 I.D Copies:
was a concern regarding the date on certified I.D copies, tax practitioners
feel it is unfair to request an I.D which is certified in not more than 3
months while the POA is valid for 12 months. Legal department advised that the
certified I.D copy is valid for 12 months as well, in order to align with the
3.3 Appointments at Pavilion:
practitioners were concerned that they do not receive feedback when they make requests
for appointment. There was a strange one received by one of the practitioners
advising him to choose the next available date because the date requested was
fully booked, and the practitioner was not comfortable with that because he did
not specify the preferred date when he sent the request. SARS assured tax
practitioners that there will be no such messages in future. The issue of not
receiving replies on appointment requests will also be address so that
corrective measures can be taken. Tax
practitioners were advised to send their requests at least 2 weeks in advance.
two cases around appointments at Pavilion were given to the Branch Manager of
Pavilion for investigation
3.4 Consistency in
Tax practitioners raised
a concern regarding inconsistencies in the branch offices, in other branches they are requested POA when
submitting documents and in other branches POA is not requested. SARS indicated
that POA must be presented on every visit because tax practitioners/tax payers
must be authenticated when visiting branch offices. The issue will also be
dealt with internally in order to ensure uniformity and alignment to standard
operating procedures. Branches that are not requesting POA are not adhering to
the standard operating procedures and tax practitioners were requested to be
compliant as well.
3.5 PAYE Journals
accounts are still problematic but Tax practitioners acknowledged and confirmed
that they are getting cooperation from Ms Mtshali – Jack, a thing which they
3.6 LBC Cases
practitioners were not satisfied about the way LBC cases are handled, they were
given contact person Mr Vincent Sibande, but he does not respond to their
requests and he does not communicate with the tax practitioner about progress
of the cases escalated to him. This matter will be taken up with the relevant
3.7 Capturing of IT77’s
of IT77’s is still done at branch offices for now.
4. AGENGA (NEW MATTERS)
4.1 SARS contacting taxpayers directly:
practitioners are concerned that SARS phones their clients directly while there
are tax practitioner contact details on the system. The matter will be discussed internally, and practitioners were requested to advice their
clients to get full details of the caller, name of division and the case number
so that they can be able to make follow-up on the call.
4.2 Fraudulent documents presented by Tax practitioners
was concern raised by SARS regarding fraudulent documents, presented by some tax
practitioners or messengers at the branch offices, amongst those documents are
TCC’s (background of how it happens was given as an example). It was indicated
that in the period of 2 weeks, there
were about 8 fraudulent tax clearances presented by tax practitioners
requesting re-prints but when checking
on the system such TCC did not exist.
practitioners agreed that if their messengers or clerks present such documents
to SARS they must be contacted so that they can be aware of what their staff
members are doing.
4.3 Limited Information regarding IT3(e)’s
as to who is supposed to issue the IT3 (e) is not clearly defined. The issue
was not discussed further because there was no example however the practitioners
were requested to send an example to Sugar.
4.4 Service of Tax Practitioners at Pretoria North Branch
addition to Pavilion, as from 01 October 2013 PTA North branch office will
implement the appointment system, and the time will be limited to 30 minutes
because Pretoria North is a normal branch office not a Practitioner unit. Tax
practitioners were encouraged to first book an appointment with Pavilion, only
if they do not get the appointment and have urgent quires then they can send
their booking to Pretoria North.
request an appointment at Pretoria North Branch, the following e-mail address should be used: firstname.lastname@example.org
4.5 YEAR End changes
Tax practitioners are unable to submit a 2nd tax return or
additional tax return for the same year in cases of change of FYE. E-filling
system does not cater for that. It is only done when a request is made to the
relevant Division. Tax practitioners feel the system should be fixed so that
they can do it without phoning someone because that is a temporary solution.
SARS will take this matter up with Business Systems.
4.6 Change of Public Officer
wanted to know whether they can use the REG001 form that they are downloading
from SARS website when they want to change public officer on SARS system in all
tax types. Clarity will be given at a later stage. Sugar will make a follow-up
and give feedback.
4.7 Provisional taxpayers
Taxpayers receive notices from SARS that they do not need to submit IRP6’s
if the status has not changed. Unfortunately the same taxpayers get penalised
for underestimation of provisional tax. The matter will be escalated in order
get clarity whether they must submit the IRP6 on not, particularly in cases
where there were no changes on the taxpayer status.
4.8 Debit pull system
There was a
concern raised by the practitioners regarding phasing out of debit pull
replacing it with credit push system introduced by SARS. The main concern is
that there was no communication given to the clients, internet payments take 2
days and that this new system will overall disadvantage clients.
do not have internet access, who are only relying on their practitioners to
process payments on their behalf, will also be affected negatively.
It was indicated
to the practitioners that SARS would want to satisfy itself that payments made
are authorised by taxpayers, hence the introduction of the new system.
There is a
possibility of an extension to still use the debit pull method, but that is not
yet confirmed. Tax practitioners requested that the public be informed once the
extension is granted.
4.9 Tax Compliance Status (TCS)
Information was shared with the practitioner regarding TCS that will soon
roll out in stages until it reaches a stage where SARS will no longer issue
manual TCC. When that process is implemented the taxpayers/tax practitioners
will be issued with pin upon requisition of TCC, the pin will confirm
compliance status of the taxpayer.
chairperson thanked all the attendees and declared the meeting adjourned