South Africa: Tax dispute resolution

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: Tax dispute resolution

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

In developed markets, major tax litigation is principally run by law firms. Fortunately, over the last decade, various South African law firms have built the necessary capacity to run tax dispute resolution matters from the first South African Revenue Service (SARS) query to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein. It is important to realise that the dispute resolution process starts with the first SARS query. The response must be drafted in a manner which considers the possibility of the end game being witnesses giving evidence under cross-examination in court.

Therefore, any incorrect factual allegation in the response to the query, however innocently made, may come back to bite the taxpayer later in the dispute resolution process. In addition it is important that any factual statement can be proved by the taxpayer. This requires an understanding of who the relevant witnesses may be, where they are and what they are going to be able to say to support the various factual allegations in the response to SARS.

In respect of the court process, no-one wants to go to court. It is costly, time consuming and absorbs senior management resources. There are plenty of opportunities to settle a tax dispute matter before court. These include the alternative dispute resolution process as well as other settlement meetings with SARS.

An understanding of the tax technical aspects of the dispute by the taxpayer is simply not sufficient at these meetings. They also require people skilled in dispute resolution and with a proper understanding of the prospects of success at trial. For example, it is not possible to understand whether a proposed settlement is a good or bad settlement for the taxpayer unless it has an understanding of its prospects of success at trial. This, in turn, requires an understanding not only of how strong the tax technical position of the taxpayer is in relation to the tax dispute, but also the ability of the taxpayer to prove its case through its witnesses.

South African taxpayers are now following the rest of the developed world in understanding the complexity of the tax dispute process and using law firms to provide the relevant expertise in these matters.

Peter Dachs (pdachs@ens.co.za)

ENSafrica – Taxand

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Website: www.ens.co.za

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Originators, loan purchasers and securitisation vehicles may need to revisit servicing agreements and pricing after a key judgment narrowed the VAT credit management exemption
Opening doors for existing talent within Baker McKenzie and a desire for enhanced legal capabilities informed Ricardo Perera’s switch from KPMG
Boaz Goren’s move to the upstart PE-backed firm takes the number of senior UK tax professionals who have left EY this year to 13
The allegations against Deloitte Cyprus raise uncomfortable questions about how far the big four can distance themselves from misconduct at member firms
The UAE accounted for most Middle East promotions and new rankings, as A&M Tax, Baker McKenzie, Dhruva Consultants and DLA Piper breached the top tier
Spanish-headquartered multinationals lead on reporting quality, while US and Swiss groups lag in the Fair Tax Foundation’s expanded analysis
Gift this article