At issues in dispute is the (1) burden of proof pertaining to the imposition of additional tax and (2) quantum of the additional taxes levied by SARS, as a result of the under-declaration by the taxpayer.
The court held that the burden of proof pertaining to the imposition of additional tax is upon the SARS in terms of section 102(2) read with section 129(3) of the Tax Administration Act. The duty to commence the proceedings in these matter is on SARS. The court also held that where the fiscus had no loss of revenue or interest and the fact that the taxpayer completely relied on her accountant, although she had a duty not to do so, additional tax of 35% of the assessed amount must be levied and not the 50% penalty levied by SARS Objection Committee in terms of section 76(1)(c) of the ITA.
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.