This dissertation purports to ascertain whether the Constitution of South Africa provides protection for taxpayers against specific practices and procedures utilised by SARS in order to collect taxes. The collection of taxes is imperative in ensuring that economical and socioeconomical objectives of the government are met. SARS is therefore awarded specific powers to achieve this. On the other side are taxpayers who are awarded constitutionally enshrined rights. Said rights may only be limited if the limitation is reasonable and just. Tension between SARS’ task and the taxpayers’ rights exist. This dissertation endeavours to find a balance where SARS can effectively collect tax whilst the taxpayers’ rights are not unreasonably and unjustly limited. The Constitution affords taxpayers the right to just administrative action. The right entails, amongst others, that when a dispute arises both parties sides must be heard. The right to just administrative action also includes legitimate expectations. A practice has transpired where SARS denies being bound by its own rulings and notes. A legitimate expectation is, nevertheless, created that SARS will act in accordance with its rulings and notes. The doctrine of legitimate expectations will provide assistance to the taxpayer in this situation. SARS further has the power to appoint a taxpayer’s agent. This procedure does not provide for the taxpayer to state his case before such an appointment is made. This prima facie violates a person’s right to just administrative action. When compared to the civil procedure of garnishee orders valuable differences transpired which will assist in elevating the tension between the taxpayer’s rights and SARS’ duty. A further right afforded, is the right of access to the court. The statement procedure and the “pay now, argue later” rule appear to be in conflict with said right. The statement procedure, which empowers SARS to file a statement at court to be made a judgment, exceeds the normal recourse available for ordinary litigants, namely the default judgment procedure. This procedure has, however, survived constitutional scrutiny. The “pay now, argue later” rule entails that a taxpayer must first pay the assessed amount before questioning the amount. This procedure is a departure from the general rule utilised in civil proceedings. It was held that this procedure is constitutional. This is, however, questioned due to the fact that at the time this rule is invoked the court’s jurisdiction is excluded. Furthermore, a taxpayer can rely on his right to property. If SARS unreasonably delays a refund due to the taxpayer this will violate said right. The situation relating to money owed in civil matters and the judgment of Sage Life Ltd indicates that a taxpayer will be entitled to interest and accordingly the violation will not be unreasonable or unjust. Moreover a taxpayer is afforded the right to privacy. Tension may arise when SARS obtains a warrant to search and seize the taxpayer’s property. This procedure is similar to the procedure of obtaining a warrant in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. Declaring this procedure unconstitutional is implausible. Other countries faced with the tension between their revenue service collecting tax and their taxpayers’ rights, are utilising certain measures to reduce this tension. Amongst other a service charter, to provide legal certainty, instituting complaints forums, to deal with poor service, and providing brochures, to educate the taxpayers is identified. The predominant measure is, however, the office of the ombudsman. The Constitution, together with other measures, does provide adequate protection for a taxpayer against SARS. Accordingly, the tension between SARS’ duty and the taxpayers’ rights is balanced with the assistance of the Constitution. Copyright / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Mercantile Law / unrestricted

SKV and Tullverket have several important tools and methods available in each activity to ensure that taxes and fees are paid and charged rightfully. Among other things they use tax or customs surcharges, targeted and general third party injunctions or targeted and general third party audits. The targeted controls, ergo targeted injunctions and audits, are targeted towards specific persons or documents while during the general controls these are not specified. The methods have repeatedly been the subject of discussions and attempts to simplify the tax procedure and increase the Rule of Law for the individual. The government appointed a commission on March 8 of the year 2012 with the assignment to prepare proposals to increase the Rule of Law in the tax procedure. The assignment was therefore to analyze the areas of tax and customs injunctions, reimbursement because of expenses and agents and also third party controls. This study was delimited, partly due to space considerations, to examine the commission's proposals to increase the Rule of Law regarding third party controls as well as to SKV as the investigating authority. Consideration will therefore not be given to Tullverket as the investigating authority. The system concerning third party controls has repeatedly over the years been the subject of criticism and debate. Not least because of that the general third party controls are indistinct due to the fact that the person who is the subject of the control is not aware of the control and that the procedure is considered to contravene the protection of privacy in the RF and the right to private and family life of the ECHR. It has hence been considered that there is a need for change. The commission would thus investigate and make proposals to increase the Rule of Law but given the precondition that third party control, including general controls, would still remain as control methods. Therefore the commission had to consider a proportionality assessment between the protection of individual privacy and SKV:s control effectiveness. In this study focus was on SOU 2013:62 and the consultation bodies’ responses received on account of the proposals. The commission proposed that the decision making on general third party controls will stay with SKV as the decision making authority and that it should be clarified in the legislative text that SKV has to relate to the principle of proportionality when deciding on general third party controls. The commission also proposed that it should be clarified in the legislative text that SKV only may search for documents and information covered by the decision but that surplus information that was discovered spontaneously also may be used. The commission held that there is no need for clarification of the legislative texts regarding that SKV shall take into account the proportionality principle in the choice of method and choice of control object. The commission also held that there is no need to legislate any imposes for SKV towards the subject of control to inform about the control if the information gathered nevertheless is intended to be the basis for decisions on taxation. Furthermore it was proposed an imposition of legislative texts regarding that the controlled, in connection with the information about the control, should be given the opportunity to request documents and information excluded from the basis for decisions on taxation. That is, after the control is carried out and provided that the information will be added basis for decisions on taxation. The majority of the consultation bodies felt that the commission was inadequate, that the proposals did not add anything new on the merits and that a new commission should be appointed with the mission to increase the Rule of Law in the tax procedure. The studies’ concluding parts contain a pro et contra analysis of the proposals on the basis of the consultation bodies’ responses, my own conclusions and general concluding comments. In these parts my own proposals are submitted for improvement to further enhance the Rule of Law in tax procedures. My own proposals are due to that the commission in my opinion may be deemed deficient in several aspects. / SKV och Tullverket har flera viktiga metoder att tillgå i respektive verksamhet för att säkerställa att skatter och avgifter lämnas och tas ut rätteligen. Bland annat så kan kontrollmyndigheterna använda skatte- eller tulltillägg, riktade och generella tredjemansförelägganden eller riktade och generella tredjemansrevisioner. Vid riktade kontroller, ergo riktade förelägganden och riktade revisioner, är kontrollerna riktade mot specificerade personer eller handlingar och vid generella kontroller är dessa inte specificerade. Metoderna har upprepade gånger varit föremål för diskussioner och försök att förenkla skatteförfarandet och öka rättssäkerheten för den enskilde. Regeringen tillsatte den 8 mars år 2012 en utredning med uppgiften att framställa förslag för en ökad rättssäkerhet i skatteförfarandet. Uppdraget var att undersöka områdena skatte- och tulltillägg, ersättning för kostnader och ombud samt tredjemanskontroller. Denna studie har bland annat på grund av utrymmesskäl avgränsats till att undersöka utredningens förslag som avser ökad rättssäkerhet vid tredjemanskontroller samt till SKV som kontrollerande myndighet. Hänsyn kommer således inte tas till Tullverket som kontrollerande myndighet. Tredjemanskontrollförfarandet har upprepade gånger genom åren varit föremål för kritik och diskussioner. Inte minst för att generella tredjemanskontroller ansetts olämpliga på grund av att den kontrollerade inte har vetskap om att denna är eller har varit föremål för kontroll samt att förfarandet ansetts strida mot integritetsskyddet i RF och rätten till privat- och familjeliv i EKMR. Det har därav ansetts att behov av förändring föreligger. Utredningen skulle således undersöka och lämna förslag för att öka rättssäkerheten för den enskilde men med hänsyn till att tredjemanskontroller, i dessa inbegripet generella tredjemanskontroller, alltjämt skulle kvarstå som metod i SKV:s kontrollverksamhet. Det fordrades följaktligen av utredningen att genomföra en proportionalitetsavvägning mellan skyddet för den enskildes integritet och SKV:s kontrolleffektivitet. I denna studie har fokus lagts på SOU 2013:62 och de remissyttranden som inkommit med anledning av förslagen. Utredningen föreslog att beslutsordningen vid generella tredjemanskontroller ska stå oförändrad med SKV som beslutsfattande instans och att det ska förtydligas i lagtext att SKV ska förhålla sig till proportionalitetsprincipen vid beslut om generella tredjemanskontroller. Utredningen föreslog även att det ska förtydligas i lagtext att SKV endast får eftersöka handlingar och uppgifter som omfattas av beslutet men att överskottsinformation som anträffats spontant får användas. Vidare angav utredningen att det inte behövs något förtydligande i lagtext avseende att SKV ska beakta proportionalitetsprincipen vid val av metod och val av kontrollobjekt. Utredningen angav även att det inte behöver införas någon underrättelseskyldighet för SKV gentemot den kontrollerade om informationen som inhämtats ändå inte är avsedd att läggas till grund för beslut om beskattning. Vidare föreslogs ett införande i lagtext avseende att den kontrollerade ska ges möjlighet att begära handlingar och uppgifter undantagna från att läggas till grund för beslut om beskattning i samband med en underrättelse, det vill säga efter att kontrollen ägt rum och under förutsättning att informationen kommer läggas till grund för beslut om beskattning. Flertalet remissinstanser ansåg att utredningen var bristfällig, att förslagen inte innebar någonting nytt i sak samt att en ny utredning bör tillsättas med uppdrag att öka rättssäkerheten i skatteförfarandet. I studiens avslutande delar redovisas en pro et contra-analys av förslagen med utgångspunkt i remissyttrandena, egna slutsatser avseende förslagen samt allmänna avslutande kommentarer. I dessa delar lämnas egna förbättringsförslag för att ytterligare öka rättssäkerheten, eftersom utredningen enligt min mening får anses bristfällig i flera avseenden.