<\/p>\n
The powers of the South African Revenue Service (Sars) in the Tax Administration Act to raise penalties for non-compliance should not be taken lightly. It has become an important revenue collection tool.<\/p>\n
Ways to escape the penalties have also become more limited with the latest change to the act.<\/p>\n
The bona fide inadvertent-error defence can no longer get a taxpayer out of the penalty regime from the start.<\/p>\n
Read:
NPO hit with massive Vat bill
Sars 3.0: How data and digital enforcement is reshaping tax debt collection
Trusts now also face automated penalties<\/p>\n
There are three main categories of penalties:<\/p>\n
Administrative non-compliance
\nPercentage-based penalties, and
\nUnderstatement penalties.<\/p>\n
Understatement penalties range from 10% to 150% in a standard case and between 20% and 200% if the taxpayer is obstructive or it is a repeat case.<\/p>\n
Bona fide error defence<\/p>\n
Before the Tax Administration Amendment Act came into force on 1 April, a taxpayer could argue that they made a bona fide inadvertent error on their tax return or in their financial statements that caused the understatement.<\/p>\n
Nico Theron, founder of Unicus Tax Specialists, explains the nub of the issue:<\/p>\n
If the taxpayer brought the matter within the bona fide inadvertent-error defence, the case fell outside the understatement-penalty regime altogether.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Theron says the listed behaviours \u2013 reasonable care not taken, no reasonable grounds for the tax position taken, gross negligence, intentional tax evasion, and even substantial understatement \u2013 could become academic.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat structure explains why the old law could short-circuit the entire penalties enquiry. It also explains why Sars became increasingly dissatisfied with the bona fide inadvertent error location in the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sars will now test the \u2018listed behaviours\u2019 first <\/p>\n
With the amendment from 1 April, Sars first wants to establish whether the understatement resulted from a non-compliant behaviour set out in its table.<\/p>\n
If the taxpayer is not guilty of any of the listed behaviours, then it escapes a penalty.<\/p>\n
But if the understatement is substantial (the greater of R1 million or 5% of the tax chargeable or refundable), there is no escape.<\/p>\n
And only then does the bona fide error defence come in.<\/p>\n
That, or a legal opinion from an independent registered tax practitioner based on all the facts, may help to get a taxpayer over the penalty hurdle.<\/p>\n
In two recent court matters \u2013 the Thistle and Coronation cases \u2013 the taxpayers successfully relied on the bona fide inadvertent-error defence and having had a legal opinion for the tax position taken to avoid penalties.<\/p>\n
Read:
Avoiding understatement penalties remains tricky despite recent case law
Sars cannot simply impose hefty understatement penalties
Coronation warns of earnings drop after one-off tax case boost
Coronation earnings and dividend decline as tax windfall drops out<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Clarification<\/p>\n
Theron says the reason for the tax amendment is found in the official memorandum.<\/p>\n
It states that the concept and scope of bona fide inadvertent error had become \u201ccontentious\u201d and \u201cadverse to the framework for a clear and effective understatement penalty regime\u201d.<\/p>\n
A substantial understatement is better understood as a \u201cresidual category\u201d, says Theron.<\/p>\n
It only applies if the prejudice to the fiscus is objectively significant and if the taxpayer is not guilty of any of the \u201cblameworthy\u201d behavioural categories.<\/p>\n
He gives an example where Sars alleges that a taxpayer did not take reasonable care or that there were no reasonable grounds for the tax position adopted, but the taxpayer is able to prove otherwise.<\/p>\n
If the prejudice is below the statutory threshold (the greater of R1 million or 5% of the tax chargeable or refundable), there is no substantial understatement and there is no penalty.<\/p>\n
If the prejudice crosses the threshold, however, substantial understatement remains in play as the residual category.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is why the amendment makes life harder for the taxpayer, even if it does not necessarily change the final answer,\u201d says Theron.<\/p>\n
Before 1 April 2026, the taxpayer could stay outside the regime altogether by invoking the bona fide inadvertent-error defence at the front end.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
After 1 April 2026, the taxpayer must first defeat the behavioural allegations and may then still be left facing substantial understatement solely because the prejudice is objectively large.<\/p>\n
Disclosure and time constraints<\/p>\n
Webber Wentzel tax partner Joon Chong points out that the bona fide inadvertent-error defence has not disappeared \u2013 but it has been repositioned and materially narrowed.<\/p>\n
The result is a clear asymmetry:<\/p>\n
For behavioural-based penalties (such as reasonable care not taken, no reasonable grounds, or gross negligence), no error-based defence survives; while
\nFor the quantum-based category of substantial understatement, a narrow, objective error defence remains.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor all other cases, the only route to remission is the disclosure-and-opinion pathway with its demanding timing and disclosure requirements,\u201d she adds.<\/p>\n
Sars must be satisfied that the taxpayer made full disclosure of the arrangement that gave rise to the understatement by no later than the date the relevant return was due.<\/p>\n
In addition, the taxpayer must have been in possession of an opinion by an independent registered tax practitioner, also issued by no later than the return due date, confirming that the taxpayer\u2019s position is more likely than not to be upheld if the matter proceeds to court.<\/p>\n
The opinion must exist when the return is filed, not when Sars opens an audit.<\/p>\n
Chong warns that if a practitioner based their opinion on only part of a multi-step transaction, it may not get the taxpayer over the penalty hurdle.<\/p>\n
Read:<\/p>\n
Faster audits, but a tougher Sars
\nSars launches forum to bolster ties with major taxpayers<\/p>\n
#Sars #tightens #grip #tax #penalties<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The powers of the South African Revenue Service (Sars) in the Tax Administration Act to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[6910,1259,3395,227,8348],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3807"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3807\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}