South Africa: Retrospective law changes

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: Retrospective law changes

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

The Taxation Laws Amendment Act 2012 contains various legislative amendments to the Income Tax Act which have retrospective effect. There is a general presumption in South African law that legislation is not intended to operate retroactively, or with retrospective effect, because to hold otherwise might cause great injustice to the individual.

The presumption applies equally to two different forms of retrospectivity:

  • The relevant Act might provide that at some past date the law shall be taken to have been something other than in fact it was at the time; and

  • The relevant Act might apply to transactions that were concluded before the legislation coming into force, thereby affecting vested rights and obligations.

Under South Africa's previous constitutional dispensation, which was based on the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, the courts could make limited use of the doctrine of the rule of law as a means of controlling the exercise of public power, especially when such exercise of power emanated from Parliament itself.

By contrast, the rule of law is specifically declared by the 1996 Constitution to be one of the foundational values of the new constitutional order in South Africa.

In Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In re ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2000, the court made it clear that the rule of law embraces the idea that legislation should not be retrospective in its operation. In particular it stated as follows:

"The scope of the rule of law is broad. ... [It] embraces some internal qualities of all public law: that it should be certain, that is ascertainable in advance so as to be predictable and not retrospective in its operation; and that it be applied equally, without unjustifiable differentiation."

One of the principles of the rule of law is that laws should not operate with retrospective effect because such retrospectivity can have an unfairly detrimental impact on the vested rights and obligations of persons who organised their affairs and arranged their transactions in accordance with what the law required at the time of such conduct. The rule of law requires that persons should be able to know what the law requires, so that they can make their conduct conform to the requirements of the law.

Peter Dachs (pdachs@ens.co.za)

ENS Taxand

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Fax: +27 21 410 2555

Website: www.ens.co.za

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Luxembourg’s reform agenda continues at pace in 2025, with targeted measures for start-ups and alternative investment funds
Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Prudential had challenged HMRC over VAT group relief; in other news, Donald Trump unveiled timber and wood tariffs, and the European Commission published a ViDA implementation strategy
Australia’s CbCR rules have ‘widespread support’ and do not put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, the FACT Coalition said
Baker McKenzie advised two of the member firms involved, while several advisers provided transaction counsel to US-based Grant Thornton Advisors
Gift this article