Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (the TA Act) deals with understatement penalties, which replaced the penalty provisions included under section 76 of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991). In the event of an ‗understatement‘, in terms of Section 222 of the TA Act, a taxpayer must pay an understatement penalty as determined by the understatement penalty table which is contained in Section 223 of the TA Act, unless the understatement results from a bona fide inadvertent error. In the Draft Response Document presented by National Treasury and SARS to the Committee on Finance (SCOF) on 11 September 2013, it was stated that SARS would develop guidance in this regard for the use of taxpayers and SARS officials (SARS, 2013d:42). The determining of a bona fide inadvertent error on taxpayers‘ returns as stipulated in Section 222 of the TA Act, as amended in 2013, is a totally new concept in the tax fraternity. It is of utmost importance that this section is applied correctly based on sound evaluation principles and not on professional judgement when determining if the error was indeed the result of a bona fide inadvertent error. This research study focuses on exploring key considerations when determining bona fide inadvertent errors resulting in understatements. The role and importance of tax penalty provisions is explored and the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ critically analysed with the purpose to find a possible definition for the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The study also compares the provisions of other tax jurisdictions with regards to errors made resulting in tax understatements in order to find possible guidelines on the application of bona fide inadvertent errors as contained in Section 222 of the TA Act. The term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ is evaluated by comparing the term with the characteristics of a good tax system and improvements for the practical execution of the new amendment to the TA Act are suggested. A literature review is used to gain an in-depth understanding of the role and importance of tax penalty provisions. Doctrinal research is also carried out to perform a critical analysis on the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. A comparative analysis between different countries regarding errors being made when dealing with understatements is performed and a normative research approach is followed to critically evaluate the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The findings of the research study revealed that the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ contained in Section 222 of the TA Act should be defined urgently and that guidelines must be provided by SARS on the application of the new amendment. SARS should also clarify the application of a bona fide inadvertent error in light of the behaviours contained in Section 223 of the TA Act to avoid any confusion. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (the TA Act) deals with understatement penalties, which replaced the penalty provisions included under section 76 of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991). In the event of an ‗understatement‘, in terms of Section 222 of the TA Act, a taxpayer must pay an understatement penalty as determined by the understatement penalty table which is contained in Section 223 of the TA Act, unless the understatement results from a bona fide inadvertent error. In the Draft Response Document presented by National Treasury and SARS to the Committee on Finance (SCOF) on 11 September 2013, it was stated that SARS would develop guidance in this regard for the use of taxpayers and SARS officials (SARS, 2013d:42). The determining of a bona fide inadvertent error on taxpayers‘ returns as stipulated in Section 222 of the TA Act, as amended in 2013, is a totally new concept in the tax fraternity. It is of utmost importance that this section is applied correctly based on sound evaluation principles and not on professional judgement when determining if the error was indeed the result of a bona fide inadvertent error. This research study focuses on exploring key considerations when determining bona fide inadvertent errors resulting in understatements. The role and importance of tax penalty provisions is explored and the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ critically analysed with the purpose to find a possible definition for the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The study also compares the provisions of other tax jurisdictions with regards to errors made resulting in tax understatements in order to find possible guidelines on the application of bona fide inadvertent errors as contained in Section 222 of the TA Act. The term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ is evaluated by comparing the term with the characteristics of a good tax system and improvements for the practical execution of the new amendment to the TA Act are suggested. A literature review is used to gain an in-depth understanding of the role and importance of tax penalty provisions. Doctrinal research is also carried out to perform a critical analysis on the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. A comparative analysis between different countries regarding errors being made when dealing with understatements is performed and a normative research approach is followed to critically evaluate the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The findings of the research study revealed that the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ contained in Section 222 of the TA Act should be defined urgently and that guidelines must be provided by SARS on the application of the new amendment. SARS should also clarify the application of a bona fide inadvertent error in light of the behaviours contained in Section 223 of the TA Act to avoid any confusion. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce Date: 31 March 2015 / As the framework for the collection of revenue by SARS evolves to ensure taxpayer compliance, the protection of taxpayers’ fundamental rights should not be overlooked. This research will evaluate certain provisions of the recently enacted Tax Administration Act (the Act) against the background of the taxpayers’ rights to privacy, property and just administrative action. These rights are contained in the Constitution of South Africa, the supreme law of the land. The analysis suggests that the conduct of SARS in exercising its statutory powers as well as some of the provisions of the Act may conflict with taxpayers’ constitutional rights and that the remedies available in such situations are limited or do not offer taxpayers an effective mechanism to obtain remedial action. Key words: Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitution of South Africa, constitutional right, just administrative action, legislation, Ombud, PAJA, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, privacy, property, remedies, SARS, tax, tax administration, Tax Administration Act, Tax Ombud, taxation, taxpayer, taxpayer compliance.

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. / Taxation

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.

The Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (TA Act), which was promulgated on 4 July 2012 and came into effect on 1 October 2012, was enacted with the purpose of aligning all the administrative provisions dealt with under the various sections of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) (IT Act) and the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991) (VAT Act) under one piece of legislation. The TA Act (28 of 2011) provides guidance on various matters of tax administration, including a very controversial penalty levying regime. Prior to the TA Act (28 of 2011), section 76 of the IT Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 the VAT Act (89 of 1991) (hereafter referred to as the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions) dealt with the levying of additional taxes in cases of understated tax returns. Sections 76 and 60 of the respective acts unfortunately did not provide proper guidelines on the assessment and calculation of these additional taxes or on how the levying of these additional taxes could conform to matters of administrative justice. These matters have been included under sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011)) and have been welcomed by most taxpayers. This research study focused on the critical evaluation of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) as well as the provisions which were repealed and replaced by the TA Act (28 of 2011) and which were previously applied in terms of the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. A comparison between the latter provisions, the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and foreign legislation is made with the purpose of addressing how effective and fair the TA Act (28 of 2011) will prove to be. The study also includes brief advice on any possible improvements or practical approaches regarding the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011). It is also seen as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated in terms of sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011), and to identify possible problems with the application and interpretation of the relevant understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) by the Commissioner. A literature review was used to critically analyse and compare various pieces of legislation and precedents, including South African and foreign laws and legislation, with possible practical illustrative examples. The objective with the literature review was to clarify issues such as the fairness of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. The findings of the research study revealed that the enactment of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) on 1 October 2012 partially achieves the objective of providing taxpayers with a penalty levying system that is more reasonable and fair in comparison with the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. Despite a more favourable outcome achieved by the TA Act (28 of 2011), the research concludes that proper guidance and measures for levying a penalty are still lacking and that the legislation is unfortunately still failing in this regard. Harsh penalty percentages based on certain behavioural criteria that are not defined create the need for obvious improvements. That said, the TA Act (28 of 2011) is still young and creates a basis on which further amendments and improvements can take place. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (TA Act), which was promulgated on 4 July 2012 and came into effect on 1 October 2012, was enacted with the purpose of aligning all the administrative provisions dealt with under the various sections of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) (IT Act) and the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991) (VAT Act) under one piece of legislation. The TA Act (28 of 2011) provides guidance on various matters of tax administration, including a very controversial penalty levying regime. Prior to the TA Act (28 of 2011), section 76 of the IT Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 the VAT Act (89 of 1991) (hereafter referred to as the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions) dealt with the levying of additional taxes in cases of understated tax returns. Sections 76 and 60 of the respective acts unfortunately did not provide proper guidelines on the assessment and calculation of these additional taxes or on how the levying of these additional taxes could conform to matters of administrative justice. These matters have been included under sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011)) and have been welcomed by most taxpayers. This research study focused on the critical evaluation of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) as well as the provisions which were repealed and replaced by the TA Act (28 of 2011) and which were previously applied in terms of the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. A comparison between the latter provisions, the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and foreign legislation is made with the purpose of addressing how effective and fair the TA Act (28 of 2011) will prove to be. The study also includes brief advice on any possible improvements or practical approaches regarding the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011). It is also seen as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated in terms of sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011), and to identify possible problems with the application and interpretation of the relevant understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) by the Commissioner. A literature review was used to critically analyse and compare various pieces of legislation and precedents, including South African and foreign laws and legislation, with possible practical illustrative examples. The objective with the literature review was to clarify issues such as the fairness of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. The findings of the research study revealed that the enactment of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) on 1 October 2012 partially achieves the objective of providing taxpayers with a penalty levying system that is more reasonable and fair in comparison with the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. Despite a more favourable outcome achieved by the TA Act (28 of 2011), the research concludes that proper guidance and measures for levying a penalty are still lacking and that the legislation is unfortunately still failing in this regard. Harsh penalty percentages based on certain behavioural criteria that are not defined create the need for obvious improvements. That said, the TA Act (28 of 2011) is still young and creates a basis on which further amendments and improvements can take place. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) play a significant role in the economy. However, SMEs face a number of obstacles and impediments that prevent them from developing and growing. Government has introduced a number of initiatives to help develop and promote SMEs but SMEs still face many remaining obstacles and impediments which include non-compliance with tax legislation. The main purpose of this dissertation is thus to help SMEs increase their level of tax compliance by developing a checklist of indicators that will help SMEs reduce the probability of tax errors occurring in respect of the gross income definition and general deduction formula. Other sections of the income tax and other tax types were not considered as the study was confined to the gross income definition and general deduction formula. These untouched areas may be considered in future research / Taxation / M. Compt.

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)

Centre for Accounting Studies / M. Phil. (Accounting Science with specialization in Taxation)