Public administration plays a major role in some countries that benefits citizens and government. Therefore, the government needs to uphold a standard of effectiveness in public administration. Research has been done in effectiveness in public administration in individual countries with limited research on certain aspects. However, not much research has been done on effectiveness of public administration which is linked to case management in Scandinavian countries. In the Swedish Administration Act, an efficiency principle has been incorporated which provides an opportunity for the delay in the case of delayed processing. At present there is no such opportunity in Norway. Aim to clarify what protection there is for individuals against delay in case management in Swedish and Norwegian law and whether this is consistent with the international commitments to which the countries are bound, primarily the principle of efficiency. The purpose is therefore to clarify what applies in each country, and to compare protection in both countries and whether this is compatible with international law, primarily the European Convention and EU law. Two methods have been used: the legal dogmatic and the comparative method. The result indicates that there is clearly that both countries tried to reduce resources in administrative case management by simplifying the rule. But this is not closed to meeting the requirement for efficiency in case management. Imposing penalties for case handling are not enough if there is no effective remedy that can uphold international law. Consequently, the delay speech without effective remedies will not lead to any major changes in practice in Swedish law. Norway is in the process of reviewing its provisions. This study is expected to draw attention to international law that is linked to public administration.

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

The implementation of the stop-and-frisk duty of the police is extremely closely related to the intervention of people¡¦s freedom of action, privacy and moral integrity right. In the past, the basis of law for the fulfillment of the stop-and-frisk duty by the police authorities was only the ¡§Regulations of the Police Duties.¡¨ Nevertheless, the Regulations contained no content of the objective for initiating the stop-and-frisk duty, the stop-and-frisk procedures and the means of relief. The Regulations only mention the term of stop and frisk, but lack the soul and body of stop and frisk. Based on the term of stop and frisk, the police always legitimized the enforcement of many banning acts, such as searching the house of a citizen in the midnight in the name of fulfilling the stop-and-frisk duty of the household. Similar behaviors were frequently found, thus creating many complaints from the citizens. After the chancellor of Judicial Yuan made an explanation of Shih No. 535, a lot of feedbacks from the police were undoubtedly created. To Taiwan, this is a great leap in marching towards a country under the rule of law. It has made the police authorities understand the importance of administrative procedures, and urged the birth of ¡§Act of Exercise of the Police Powers.¡¨ In the new Act, the behavior of stop and frisk is replaced by the term ¡§checking of identity.¡¨ A local scholar, Wu Keng once mentioned that ¡§stop and frisk¡¨ had been abolished and not been used. However, is it the fact? This paper is going to investigate the issue. Besides, does the constitution of the Act mean that the stop-and-frisk legal system is sound enough? This is another issue worthy of studying. Due to the vastness and un-limitedness of Administration Act, there is no country in the world having a sound and complete Administration Act. Nevertheless, viewing at the theories and principles of Administration Act, it can be generally divided into five main structures: basic principles, administrative organization, limit of administrative rights, administrative relief and administrative surveillance. If an administrative legal system is fearless to receive the examination based on each item of the five main structures of Administrative Law, it can be called a sound and complete administrative legal system. Another local scholar, Li Chen-Shan thinks that the separation of criminal law from Administration Act has led to the division of the police¡¦s mission of maintaining public security into two parts: ¡§prevention of harm¡¨ and ¡§criminal arrest,¡¨ which prevents the administrative harm and the criminal harm respectively. While they cross over the administrative area and the criminal area, stop-and-frisk duty belongs to an administrative behavior. Since it just belongs to the ¡§prevention of harm,¡¨ it should be regulated by the theories and principles of Administration Act. Therefore, this paper takes the stop-and-frisk legal system of police officers as the main body of the study. From the viewpoint of the science of law, this paper employs the abovementioned basic theories of Administration Act, i.e. the ¡§five major structures¡¨ of administrative principles, administrative organization, limit of administrative rights, administrative relief and administrative surveillance, as the research approaches of the study to examine the stop-and-frisk system of the police officers of Taiwan. Under this mode of thinking, the study is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 is Introduction, which firstly raises queries over the practice of fulfilling stop-and-frisk duty by the police authorities, and then introduces the motives, objectives, research approaches, research area and research structure of the paper. Chapter 2 is Basic Principles of Stop-and-Frisk Legal System, which firstly reviews the basic concepts of the two terms, the police and stop and frisk, and then investigates the background for the constitution of stop-and-frisk legal system. In this chapter, substantial information from the social aspect of the practical phenomena, the economic aspect of the optimal adjustment, the political aspect of negotiation and compromising, and the legal aspect of acts and regulations, is presented, enabling us to have a deeper understanding of the practical phenomena of stop-and-frisk legal system. After that, the chapter analyzes and compares the international aspects of the stop-and-frisk legal system of three countries, Germany, Japan and the United States, so as to take them as the references for the improvement of local legal system. Then, the chapter investigates the concepts of the rule of law of stop-and-frisk legal system, as well as the nature of stop and frisk from the angles of the three administrative principles according to laws and the seven principles of procedural justice. Finally, the chapter explores the relationship between stop-and-frisk legal system and the participation of the parties concerned. It is hoped that through the participation methods of the parties concerned, the stop-and-frisk legal system can become more sound and complete. Chapter 3 introduces the administrative organization of stop-and-frisk legal system by starting from the organizational structure of the existing police organization, and then investigates the organizational structure of the police authorities, staff on duty (including the assistants on duty), the budget and other problems. It is expected that a complete organizational structure can be formed to achieve a smooth operation of the stop-and-frisk practices of police officers. Chapter 4 discusses about the design and use of the limit of the rights of stop-and-frisk legal system. The chapter investigates each item stipulated in Administrative Procedure Act,¡¨ including the administrative plan, administrative legislation, legislative punishment, administrative investigation, administrative agreement, administrative guidance and the fulfillment of administrative obligations, hoping to make a comprehensive investigation of the limit of the stop-and-frisk rights. Chapter 5 introduces the relief and problem-solving measures of stop-and-frisk legal system. There is an ancient saying about law, ¡§Where there is right, there is relief.¡¨ This chapter firstly mentions the right of dissent, and then discusses about the issues of pleading, administrative lawsuit, national compensation, compensation of loss and referendum, intending to cover every detail of the rights of citizens. Chapter 6 talks about the administrative surveillance of stop-and-frisk legal system, and investigates the internal surveillance mechanism of the police authorities themselves and the external fair surveillance mechanism of the third parties. It is hoped that the surveillance mechanisms can meet the national and public requirements, no matter from the legal facet or the practical facet. Chapter 7 is the Conclusions and Suggestions, which synthesize the researcher¡¦s discussion of the five main structures of Administration Act. Over some specific items of the existing stop-and-frisk legal system of the police officers that need to be revised or deleted, the chapter proposes concrete suggestions, which can be a reference for the police authorities in exercising their powers, and working on the goals of building the administrative standards of Taiwan according to law, and improving the legal image of Taiwan under the rule of law.