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 2026

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

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article