South Africa: Pay now, argue later

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

South Africa: Pay now, argue later

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

The Tax Administration Act provides that a taxpayer is liable to pay tax once an assessment has been raised by the South African Revenue Service (SARS). In terms of section 164 of the Tax Administration Act, unless a senior SARS official otherwise directs in terms of subsection (3), the obligation to pay tax and the right of SARS to receive and recover tax will not be suspended by an objection or appeal or pending the decision of a court of law. In terms of section 164(2) a taxpayer may request a senior SARS official to suspend the payment of tax or a portion thereof due under an assessment if the taxpayer intends to dispute or disputes the liability to pay that tax.

Section 164(3) provides that a senior SARS official may suspend the payment of the disputed tax or a portion thereof having regard to:

  • The compliance history of the taxpayer;

  • The amount of tax involved;

  • The risk of dissipation of assets by the taxpayer concerned during the period of suspension;

  • Whether the taxpayer is able to provide adequate security for the payment of the amount involved;

  • Whether the payment of the amount involved would result in irreparable financial hardship to the taxpayer;

  • Whether sequestration or liquidation proceedings are imminent;

  • Whether fraud is involved in the origin of the dispute; or

  • Whether the taxpayer has failed to furnish information requested under the Tax Administration Act for purposes of a decision under section 164.

Section 164(6) states that from the date that SARS receives a request for suspension and ending 10 business days after notice of SARS' decision, no recovery proceedings may be taken against the taxpayer unless SARS has a reasonable belief that there is a risk of dissipation of assets by the taxpayer.

Therefore, as soon as a taxpayer receives an assessment from SARS which it intends to challenge, it should consider making application for a suspension of payment under section 164(2) of the Tax Administration Act.

The taxpayer should refer to and argue its case in terms of each of the grounds set out in section 164(3). The test is a composite one and therefore it is not necessary for a taxpayer to pass each of these tests.

If SARS decides not to grant the request for suspension of payment, a taxpayer cannot object and appeal against such decision. However, the exercise of the power granted to SARS to approve or refuse a request for a suspension of payment constitutes administrative action and is therefore reviewable by a court in terms of the principles of administrative law.

Peter Dachs (pdachs@ensafrica.com)

ENSafrica – Taxand

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Website: www.ensafrica.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
Gift this article