Print Page
News & Press: Opinion

Default judgement in tax litigation

Thursday, 26 June 2014   (1 Comments)
Posted by: Author: Robert Gad
Share |

Author: Robert Gad and Jadyne Devnarain (ENSAfrica)

In terms of the current Tax Court rules published under the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962, where the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service ("SARS”) did not comply with the prescribed time frames in respect of dispute resolution, practically, there was little that a taxpayer could do. This could change in terms of the proposed new Tax Court rules expected to come into force later this year.

To illustrate the current difficulty faced by the taxpayer in having matters promptly dealt with, SARS, in a fairly recent unreported case, sought condonation for the late filing of a Statement in terms of rule 10 of the current Tax Court rules. In delivering its judgment in favour of SARS, the court noted that it should be very careful to place a threshold at so high a level that it would result in the inability of SARS to prosecute what may well be a legitimate case regarding unpaid taxes from a party such as the taxpayer, that the public interest demands that all South African citizens pay their due taxes and that technical arguments should be placed in proper perspective. The court acknowledged that the purpose of the condonation application was to introduce some nature of pragmatism into the manner in which parties litigate and was of the view that the taxpayer’s insistence that the condonation application be made, postponed the matter unduly. The court concluded that this was not the kind of case where condonation should be refused and it would be a significant ‘overreach’ of the scope of the powers of the court to set aside SARS’ assessment.   

Had the court dismissed the condonation application, this would have left the matter in limbo since it would not have been possible for the next step of the dispute resolution process to be taken by SARS. However the assessment would still stand. In this case, the taxpayer would have been required to make yet a further application to court to set the matter aside. 

It appears that the draft new Tax Court rules, if promulgated, will somewhat simplify this process. Part F of the draft new Tax Court rules allow for an application for default judgment in the event of non-compliance with the rules by either the taxpayer or SARS. If, for example, SARS is at fault, the taxpayer may deliver a notice to SARSinforming SARS of its intention to apply to the Tax Court for a final order in the event that SARS fails to remedy the default within 15 days of delivery of the notice. In the event that SARS fails to remedy the default within the prescribed period the taxpayer may apply, on notice to SARS, to the Tax Court for a final order to the effect that SARS’ assessment or decision be altered.

From a litigation point of view, for example, careful consideration of issues such as delays, requests for extensions and the granting of extensions may become very important if an application under this new proposed rule is to be brought.

The proposed new dispensation could thus prove to be favourable to both the taxpayer and SARS where either party does not comply with the prescribed time periods and obligations in the dispute resolution process.

This article first appeared on


Alan J. Lewis says...
Posted Thursday, 03 July 2014
I do not agree. Rule 26 (5) is a potent weapon which is granted to taxpayers to use against SARS, where SARS is in breach of any obligations as set out in the rules. On 1 August 2013, the Gauteng tax court awarded my client costs in an application for an order to compel SARS to deal with its objection. SARS had simply failed to deal with the objection within the prescribed period of 90 days. After service of the application, but prior to trial, SARS has allowed the objection. However, this did not assist SARS, as the tax court awarded my client costs. This is a very simple procedure to get SARS to their work, as it is applicable to any obligation, which is imposed by the rules, which SARS has failed to comply with. It would be most effective where SARS does not deal with assessments within the prescribed time periods, which it regularly fails to do.



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