Thesis (MComm)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The new set of employment equity laws call for South African organisations to justify their compensations systems. During compensation discrimination litigation, evidence is required to support arguments put before the court in order to meet the burden of proof. The similarity between foreign and domestic legal systems, suggests that the operational implications of foreign legislation will also be relevant to South Africa. This raises the debate as to the nature of fairness in the compensation context, the debate of comparable worth and the use of multiple regression analysis. The organisation must present to the court evidence to show that the choice of compensable constructs, their measurement and application does not discrimination directly or indirectly based on group membership. Multiple regression analysis, a statistical method to model the compensation system, is fraught with difficulties and misunderstanding. It is nevertheless the most appropriate method to investigate compensation fairness. Comparable worth and multiple regression analysis require assessment in the South African context. The issues, which hindered the successful use of multiple regression analysis abroad, are reviewed in order to smooth its entry into South African litigation. A framework is presented based on literature and case law whereby all parties concerned can produce and evaluate such evidence / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die nuwe Anti-Diskrimineringswetgewing verlang van Suid-Afrikaanse organisasies om salarisstelsels te regverdig. Gedurende salarisdiskriminasielitigasie word bewys verlang om die bewyslas oor te dra. Die gelyksoortigheid van buitelandse en binnelandse regstelsels gee te kenne dat die operatiewe implikasies van buitelandse wetgewing relevant tot Suid-Afrika sal wees. Dit bevraagteken die aard van billikheid in die kompensasie konteks, die debat van vergelykbare waarde en die gebruik van veelvoudige regressieontleding. Die betrokke party moet bewys aan die hof toon om te bevestig dat die keuse van vergoedingskonstruksie, sowel as die meting en toepassing daarvan, nie onregverdig diskrimineer, ten opsigte van demografiese groepe me. Veelvoudige regressieontleding 'n statistiese metode wat gebriuk kan word om die salarissisteem voor te stel. Alhoewel dit vele onduidelikhede bevat, is dit steeds die mees toepaslike metode om salarisbillikheid te ondersoek. Vergelykbare waarde en meervoudige regressieontleding is in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks geëvalueer. Die aspekte wat die sukses van die gebruik van meervoudige regressieontleding in ander lande verhinder het, is ondersoek en geëvalueer om die toekomstige toepassing daarvan in Suid-Afrika te vergemaklik. 'n Raamwerk gebaseer op literatuur en gevalle studies word voorgestel, waar al die betrokke partye sodanige bewys kan produseer en evalueer.

The study aims to review the regulatory powers exercised by the South African Revenue Services (SARS) with regard to the issuing, decline or revocation of a taxpayer’s tax clearance certificate, to highlight any remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer in order to protect the right of taxpayers to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Previously, a tax clearance certificate was not issued in terms of any statute or provision of any Tax Act. However, since the introduction of the Tax Administration Act, as amended (TAA), the issuing of the tax clearance certificates are more efficiently regulated. The issuing of tax clearance certificate’s must conform to the values and principles prescribed for under current legislation, and more particularly, as espoused under the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). However, it has been reported some taxpayer were experiencing unreasonable and incomprehensible delays in obtaining responses to the objections lodged with SARS for assessment. Taxpayers seeking resolution of their disputes with SARS, currently opt to incur litigation costs in order to obtain appropriate relief from the High Courts. Taxpayers must take note that there is nothing in Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) or the common law, which empowers a Court to order an administrator to take action, including the making of a decision which the administrator is not lawfully allowed to make. The study highlights remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer to prevent the misapplication of fiscal power by SARS in the issuing of the taxpayer’s compliance status, thus protecting the right to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Taxpayers who are aggrieved by a decision taken by the Revenue Authority are encouraged to timeously address their grievances, commencing with the internal dispute resolution remedies provided for within the TAA. / Financial Accounting / M. Compt. (Accounting Sciences)

Prior to 1994, South African taxpayers had little protection from fiscal legislation or the decisions, actions or conduct of the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) that violated their common law rights. Parliament reigned supreme and in tax matters, the strict and literal approach to the interpretation of statutes was employed, with the judiciary often quoting the mantra that there is “no equity about tax”. The Income Tax Act (Act No 58 of 1962) was littered with discriminatory and unfair provisions based on age, religion, sex and marital status. Even unreasonable decisions taken by SARS could not be reviewed by the judiciary as “unreasonableness” was not a ground for review of the exercise of a discretion by SARS. On 27 April 1994, the constitutional order changed. Parliamentary supremacy was replaced with constitutional supremacy and the rights to privacy, equality, human dignity, property and just administrative action were codified in a Bill of Rights. The codification of these fundamental rights has materially changed the nature and extent of the rights of South African taxpayers. The objective of this thesis, therefore, is to identify, analyse and discuss South African taxpayers’ rights from a constitutional perspective. The following major conclusions can be drawn from the research done: - the judiciary have been forced to reappraise their approach to the interpretation of statutes from a “strict and literal” to a “purposive” approach that is in accordance with the values underpinning the new constitutional order; - new legislation has amended some of the so-called “reverse” onus of proof provisions that were constitutionally unsound – this should result in greater fairness and consistency for affected taxpayers especially in the area of when penalties may be imposed; - the concept of clean hands and good facts can influence the judiciary when arguing that a taxpayer’s right to just administrative action has been violated; and - discriminatory and unfair legislation and conduct on the part of SARS may and should be attacked on a substantive law basis, especially where human dignity is at stake. The overall conclusion is that taxpayers’ rights are more far-reaching than prior to 1994 but still have some way to go before they are fully interpreted and developed. / Accounting Science / D.Compt.

Prior to 1994, South African taxpayers had little protection from fiscal legislation or the decisions, actions or conduct of the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) that violated their common law rights. Parliament reigned supreme and in tax matters, the strict and literal approach to the interpretation of statutes was employed, with the judiciary often quoting the mantra that there is “no equity about tax”. The Income Tax Act (Act No 58 of 1962) was littered with discriminatory and unfair provisions based on age, religion, sex and marital status. Even unreasonable decisions taken by SARS could not be reviewed by the judiciary as “unreasonableness” was not a ground for review of the exercise of a discretion by SARS. On 27 April 1994, the constitutional order changed. Parliamentary supremacy was replaced with constitutional supremacy and the rights to privacy, equality, human dignity, property and just administrative action were codified in a Bill of Rights. The codification of these fundamental rights has materially changed the nature and extent of the rights of South African taxpayers. The objective of this thesis, therefore, is to identify, analyse and discuss South African taxpayers’ rights from a constitutional perspective. The following major conclusions can be drawn from the research done: - the judiciary have been forced to reappraise their approach to the interpretation of statutes from a “strict and literal” to a “purposive” approach that is in accordance with the values underpinning the new constitutional order; - new legislation has amended some of the so-called “reverse” onus of proof provisions that were constitutionally unsound – this should result in greater fairness and consistency for affected taxpayers especially in the area of when penalties may be imposed; - the concept of clean hands and good facts can influence the judiciary when arguing that a taxpayer’s right to just administrative action has been violated; and - discriminatory and unfair legislation and conduct on the part of SARS may and should be attacked on a substantive law basis, especially where human dignity is at stake. The overall conclusion is that taxpayers’ rights are more far-reaching than prior to 1994 but still have some way to go before they are fully interpreted and developed. / Accounting Science / D.Compt.