Doctor Legum - LLD / Taxation is fundamental for development in South Africa (SA), a developing country with an emerging economy in which taxation is essential to capacitate the government so that it can fulfil its mandate under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution). This mandate includes bringing about socio-economic transformation, part of transformative constitutionalism, through progressively realising socio-economic rights. This dissertation examines the way in which tax administration may take place efficiently and effectively with due respect for taxpayers' rights. A clear link is shown between taxation, human rights and the South African government's responsibilities to attain its transformation targets. To facilitate this process, the Constitution creates a legal framework for the imposition of tax and for the equitable distribution of tax revenue among the three spheres of government. For historical, political and other reasons, South Africans generally, as happens elsewhere in the world, lack a strong culture of voluntary tax compliance. Wilful non-payment of tax is antithetical to the values of democracy, ubuntu and the rule of law. Tax non-compliance minimises revenue collected from taxation. This, in turn, hinders the attainment of transformation in all its facets. A pressing need exists for laws that, on the one hand, promote tax morality and, on the other, strengthen the South African Revenue Service (SARS) so that it can effectively administer SA's national tax system (or grid). To this end, the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) is pivotal. It regulates tax administration, a part of public administration. Under the Constitution, SARS is obliged to execute its functions in a manner respectful of taxpayers' rights and that upholds the Constitution’s values and democratic principles. Consequently, the TAA must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, protecting taxpayers' rights and, on the other, arming SARS with adequate powers with which it can effectively combat the mischief of tax non-compliance. This dissertation shows that, when viewed through the prism of s 36 of the Bill of Rights (BOR), the powers conferred on SARS by ss 45(1), (2), 63(1) and (4) of the TAA to conduct warrantless inspections and searches, as the case may be, limit taxpayers' rights to, inter alia, privacy. It concludes that, whilst ss 63(1) and (4) ought to pass muster, ss 45(1) and (2) are susceptible to a declaration of invalidity under s 172(1) of the Constitution.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gisela Barroso Istamati.pdf: 571052 bytes, checksum: c8761afbeb7d9fd7a9e54014c8dc2235 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-11 / The debate regarding the limits of expression have always been present in several scopes of discussion, whether political, social or academic. Notwithstanding, the analysis of the humoristic manifestation of this right is proposed when it concerns politicians, the people s legal representatives, thus questioned: does humor directed to politicians have constitutional limits? In this sense, the hypothesis of this work is that it shall have a greater tolerance in relation to the comunicative excesses of humor when concentrated to politicians and candidates. To verify if this work theory is subject to being concrete, the solid theoretical base exam was developed to comprehend the concept regarding the right to freedom of expression considering, essentially, of four focuses: a) negative and positive freedom; b) instrumental and constructive justification; c) prima facie preferential position; and d) internal and external theory to the limits of the fundamental rights. Furthermore, it is verified to which interpretation the Supreme Federal Court grants this right. Subsequently, these aspects examined were confronted with being applied to the analysis of the Direct Action of Inconstitutionality No. 4.451 ( jornalistic humor on candidature case ). With this, in conjunction with the theorical base developed, I seek to provide an adequate answer to the problem proposed in this work and, thus, verifying if the hypotheses becomes concrete in face of the Brazilian judicial order / O debate sobre os limites da liberdade de expressão sempre esteve presente em diversos âmbitos de discussão (políticos, sociais ou acadêmicos). Não obstante, o que se propõe é a análise da manifestação humorística deste direito quando se volta a políticos, representantes legais do povo, assim problematizado: o humor direcionado a políticos tem limites constitucionais? Neste sentido, a hipótese deste trabalho é que deve haver uma maior tolerância em relação aos excessos comunicativos do humor quando concentrado aos políticos e candidatos. Para verificar se esta hipótese de trabalho é passível de ser concretizada, desenvolveu-se o exame de sólida base teórica para compreender o conceito acerca do direito à liberdade de expressão a partir, essencialmente, de quatro enfoques: a) liberdade negativa e positiva; b) justificação instrumental e construtiva; c) posição preferencial prima facie; e d) teoria interna e externa aos limites dos direitos fundamentais. Ainda, verifica-se qual interpretação o Supremo Tribunal Federal confere a este direito. Em seguida, estes aspectos examinados foram aplicados à análise da Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade nº 4.451 ( caso humor jornalístico sobre candidaturas ). Com isso, em conjunto com a base teórica desenvolvida, busco fornecer uma resposta adequada ao problema proposto neste trabalho e verificar, assim, se a hipótese se concretiza frente ao ordenamento jurídico brasileiro