Print Page
News & Press: Taxbreaks

PAYE Not Paid Over: Is The Employee Still Credited?

Tuesday, 31 January 2012   (0 Comments)
Posted by: Author: Ruaan Van Eeden
Share |

PAYE Not Paid Over: Is The Employee Still Credited?

Employees are not penalised by their employer’s non-compliance,provided certain procedures are followed.

Is an employee entitled to Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) credits on assessment where their employer has not actually paid over the PAYE to SARS? Employers, at least for the most part, know what their PAYE obligations are towards SARS,including the obligation to issue IRP5 tax certificates on an annual basis.Given the onerous penalty regime under the Fourth Schedule,which includes personal liability for shareholder and directors in certain instances, it is in the best interest for employers to always fully comply with their obligations.

It does however happen,especially in cases of small to medium-sized employers, that cash flow is heavily affected in a given period due to depressed economic conditions or other factors (some criminal), resulting in SARS not receiving the PAYE deducted from remuneration.

Generally, employees are not privy to whether employers actually pay over the PAYE deducted from their remuneration to SARS and accept that an IRP5 tax certificate issued will suffice as sufficient proof.It may also happen that no IRP5 tax certificate is issued to an employee—even where it is shown on a payslip that PAYE has in fact been withheld.

On assessment of the individual tax return of the employee, SARS may in certain instances refuse to give any credit for the PAYE shown on the IRP5 tax certificate,in effect resulting in double taxation. The question is whether SARS is within its rights not to give a PAYE credit against an employee's normal tax liability on assessment, where the employer failed to actually pay the amount over.

Paragraph 28 of the Fourth Schedule governs the treatment of PAYE and provisional tax to be set off against a taxpayer's normal tax liability. For purposes of this article, Paragraph 28(1) states that "there shall be set off against the liability of the taxpayer in respect of any taxes ... due by the taxpayer, the amounts of employees tax deducted or withheld by the taxpayer's employer during any year of assessment ..." (own emphasis).

Paragraph 28(2) then goes on to state that: "[t]he burden of proof that any amount of employees' tax has been deducted or withheld by his (sic) employer shall be upon the taxpayer and any employees' tax certificate shall be prima facie evidence that the amount of employees tax reflected herein has been deducted by the employer" (own emphasis).Based on the provisions of Paragraph 28(2), the onus is on the employee, as the taxpayer, to discharge the burden of proof that PAYE has in fact been deducted or withheld by their employer—and nothing more.

It is submitted that the burden of proof to show that PAYE has been deducted or withheld is distinctly different to the actual payment of the PAYE to SARS. The payment of PAYE by the employer, after it has been deducted or withheld, is not governed by Paragraph 28 but rather by Paragraph 2(1).The basis on which Paragraph 2 operates, is firstly to require an employer to deduct or withhold PAYE from remuneration, and then to pay the amounts so deducted over to SARS within seven days after month end.

Furthermore, Paragraph 13(1) obliges the employer to issue an IRP5 tax certificate in respect of PAYE deducted or withheld, and makes no reference to such taxes actually having been paid to SARS.Under Paragraph 28(2), the IRP5 tax certificate will serve as prima facie evidence that the PAYE reflected thereon has been withheld or deducted by the employer as required by that provision.However, to fully discharge the burden of proof, something more would be required from the employee. An employee would have to furnish payslips and bank statements to SARS, indicating that they have been impoverished by the PAYE withheld.In other words,the receipt of remuneration reflected in the employees' bank account should be a net after-tax amount.

Once an employee can discharge the onus of proof that PAYE was in fact deducted or withheld from remuneration, SARS appears to have no further discretion in the matter, and must allow the PAYE as a credit against the employee's normal tax liability—irrespective of whether the PAYE was actually paid over by the employer to SARS.

Source: By Ruaan van Eeden (Tax breaks)



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.

  • Tax Practitioner Registration Requirements & FAQ's
  • Rate Our Service

    Membership Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal