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 2025

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

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
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article