South Africa: Settlements with SARS

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement


South Africa: Settlements with SARS

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

It has been widely reported that the South African Revenue Service (SARS) is making application for the sequestration of Julius Malema, the head of the Economic Freedom Front political party, after the 'collapse' of a settlement agreement between the parties. These reports state that Malema did not correctly disclose the source of the funds used to settle the tax debt which formed part of the agreement. In determining whether settlement is appropriate the Commissioner of SARS must consider a variety of factors including the potential costs of litigation to SARS and its likelihood of success, factual or evidentiary difficulties which would make litigation or alternative dispute resolution problematic, whether settlement is in the best interest of good management of the tax system, overall fairness and use of SARS' resources.

It is specifically stated that a person participating in a settlement procedure must disclose all relevant facts during the discussion phase of the process of settling a dispute. In addition a settlement is conditional upon full disclosure of material facts known to the person concerned at the time of the settlement.

A written agreement must then be concluded between the parties which includes details on, for example, how each issue is settled, relevant undertakings by the parties and arrangement for payment.

Section 148 of the Tax Administration Act provides that SARS is not bound by the terms of the written agreement if the taxpayer has failed to make full disclosure in settlement discussions or if there was fraud or misrepresentation of the facts. It is this point that SARS has allegedly raised in respect of its settlement agreement with Julius Malema.

In conclusion, while settlement should always be considered in a tax dispute, there are various risks associated with such process including the risk that the settlement agreement is subsequently not adhered to by SARS on the basis that material facts were not disclosed by the taxpayer or that there was fraud or misrepresentation of the facts.

Peter Dachs (pdachs@ensafrica.com)

ENSafrica – Taxand Africa

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Website: www.ensafrica.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Advisers with pre-existing corporation tax or self-assessment accounts must now register or risk enforcement action from HMRC
India's tax authorities are increasingly scrutinising the rationale behind cross-border structures
Sharmila Sanmugam's move from industry to WTS UK offers an early glimpse into how the fledgling firm hopes to compete with larger rivals
Historical claims involving KPMG Australia's tax practice have surfaced as the firm battles a separate parliamentary inquiry into its handling of whistleblowers
While AI is revolutionising tax work, it is also reshaping clients’ willingness to pay for advice and their perception of the value generated by tax advisers
From Dhruva Advisors to Svalner Atlas, Ryan is growing fast. Tom Shave discusses consolidation, competition, and tax’s private equity debate
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal the shortlisted nominees for the Middle East Tax Awards
The UK has confirmed its approach to the OECD’s side-by-side deal, but US-parented groups may find pillar two compliance remains far from straightforward
Fragmented pillar two taxation and increased use of AI by tax authorities have left clients fearful of heightened disputes exposure
Grant Thornton Advisors’ latest acquisition has produced the fifth-largest US advisory firm by revenue, but there’s still a clear gulf between it and the big four
Gift this article