This paper evidences the need that Tax Administrations have, within a context of economic globalization and business internationalization, to improve and intensify exchange of information in order to achieve an effective and efficient control over the application process of their domestic tax regimes. Considering the benefit maximizing strategy implemented by private economic agents in the global setting, which includes international tax planning as one of their tools, Tax administrations ought to collaborate with each other. Exchange of information is the most suitable mean to implement such collaboration. Within this context, certain taxpayers’ rights could be at stake due to the exchange process; rights that could be properly acknowledged at the domestic level, but could lack similar recognition in an international scenario. / En el presente documento se trata de poner de manifiesto como las Administraciones tributarias, en un contexto de globalización económica e internacionalización de las empresas, necesitan mejorar e incrementar el intercambio de información entre ellas, si quieren llegar a controlar de manera eficaz y eficiente la aplicación de los sistemas impositivos nacionales. Ahora bien, frente a la estrategia de maximización del beneficio a nivel global de los agentes económicos privados, uno de cuyos instrumentos es la planificación fiscal internacional, las Administraciones tributarias deben colaborar entre sí, y el intercambio de información es, en las condiciones actuales, el medio más adecuado para dicha colaboración. Es en este contexto donde se puede plantear la existencia de derechos de los contribuyentes que sean afectados por ese intercambio, derechos que están reconocidos a nivel de las operaciones internas, pero que no lo están cuando nos referimos al ámbito internacional.

This paper addresses a principle in international taxation that has long been a subject of controversy in many countries regarding the countering of abusive maneuverings in tax matters and had engendered debates amongst academic scholars concerning its predictibility. This anti-abuse principle, doctrine or clause in international tax matters had over the years received many names according to variant applied in each country. It is mentioned sometimes or refer to in many jurisdictions as: the principle of economic reality, the doctrine of economic substance, theory of valid economic motives, the principle of substance over form, abuse of the law, theory of the new realism etc. However, inspite of its variation in countries, it is internationally known as the ‘’General Anti-Avoidance Rule’’ (or GAAR), generally covering abusive arrangements, and it is distinguished from the SAAR (‘’Specific Anti-Avoidance Rule’’), insofar as these latter rule apply to specific status in dealing with specific tax issues. The long time perspective regarding the principle that is expounded in this discussion paper contain some of the most relevant and important contexts in international tax law. It is interesting that this paper seeks to catapult vis-à-vis the GAARs along side the rule of law regarding its conformity.

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.

L’utilisation par les contribuables et leurs conseils des dispositions relatives aux droits de l’homme, en général, et de la Convention EDH, en particulier, n’a plus rien d’étonnant aujourd’hui. Les juridictions nationales se référent de plus en plus souvent à la Convention dans l’ensemble du contentieux fiscal. Certes, le sujet n’est pas facile à aborder car il se trouve à la croisée des chemins du droit public et du droit privé et, de par son champ d’application, se relève très vaste. L’étude a pour objectif d’identifier la position de la Cour EDH sur la matière fiscale lorsqu’elle joue un rôle spécifique dans la défense des droits fondamentaux du contribuable. L'accent sera mis sur l’influence que les dispositions conventionnelles ont pu exercer sur la protection des droits du contribuable et sur les évolutions matérielles et procédurales du droit fiscal dans certains pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe. L’étude présente un intérêt certain de fournir les moyens d'une meilleure appréciation de l'apport véritable de la jurisprudence de la Cour EDH à la protection des droits du contribuable, propulsée par l’évolution de l’interprétation de la Convention EDH à la lumière des conditions de la vie actuelle. À cet égard, son originalité tient à ce qu'elle s'appuie sur une analyse large des affaires rendues en matière fiscale et, par conséquent, sur les décisions jurisprudentielles les plus récentes. Une comparaison avec la jurisprudence de la CJUE est également effectuée dans la mesure du possible. / Nowadays, the use of different provisions intended to protect human rights in general, and the ECHR, in particular, by taxpayers and their counsel does not surprise with many domestic jurisdictions increasingly making reference to the Convention in any type of tax litigation. However, it is still a difficult topic to address as it simultaneously crosses across both public and private law. The main aim of this study is to identify the position of the Court on taxation matters, when it assumes a specific role in the protection of the taxpayer’s fundamental rights and freedom. Emphasis is given to the impact that the provisions of the Convention can exert on the evaluation of substantive and procedural tax rules that are applied in several countries of the Council of Europe and the protection of the taxpayer’s rights. The study has a specific interest to provide the means for a better understating of the real value of the European Convention on Human Rights for the protection of the taxpayer’s rights propelled by its dynamic interpretation over the past years. In this regard, the originality of the study is based on a broad analysis of cases recently decided by the Court. As far as possible, a comparison with the case law of the CJEU is also undertaken.

This study examines the factors to consider in establishing an effective tax Ombudsman in South Africa. It seeks to establish how the democratic protection institutions such as the South African Public Protector and the South African Human Rights Commission and the Courts created in terms of the 1996 Constitution vis-à-vis the ways the South African Revenue Service‟ (hereinafter referred to as SARS) new court rules and Service Monitoring Offices safeguard and protect taxpayers rights against SARS‟ administrative abuses. The researcher reviews and analyses literature gathered from the following sources: the Australian and Canadian tax Ombudsman, the United Kingdom‟s tax adjudicator, the South African motor industry Ombudsman, the South African banking services Ombudsman, the South African Public Protector, the Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (hereinafter referred to as the TAA), the South African Constitution (108 of 1996), and other popular scientific articles and reports on the introduction of the tax Ombudsman in South Africa. The findings reveal the core factors that underscore the establishment of an effective tax Ombud in South Africa to include: independence, neutrality, credible review process and confidentiality. Other auxiliary factors with regard to the appointment of the tax Ombud are: leadership skills, honesty, integrity and courage. Furthermore, the provisions of the TAA, in relation to the appointment of the tax Ombud‟s funding, staffing, location, and powers with particular reference to cost recovery and disclosure of taxpayers‟ confidential information, impede on the tax Ombud‟s independence. It also emerged from this study that the independence of the tax Ombud‟s office is being over-emphasised, leaving other pertinent issues of equal importance, such as education and publicity, unattended to. The recommendations for this study revolve on the tax Ombud‟s appointment, budget and recruitment of its own staff, building a reputation of independence through public education and the power to recover costs. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

This study examines the factors to consider in establishing an effective tax Ombudsman in South Africa. It seeks to establish how the democratic protection institutions such as the South African Public Protector and the South African Human Rights Commission and the Courts created in terms of the 1996 Constitution vis-à-vis the ways the South African Revenue Service‟ (hereinafter referred to as SARS) new court rules and Service Monitoring Offices safeguard and protect taxpayers rights against SARS‟ administrative abuses. The researcher reviews and analyses literature gathered from the following sources: the Australian and Canadian tax Ombudsman, the United Kingdom‟s tax adjudicator, the South African motor industry Ombudsman, the South African banking services Ombudsman, the South African Public Protector, the Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (hereinafter referred to as the TAA), the South African Constitution (108 of 1996), and other popular scientific articles and reports on the introduction of the tax Ombudsman in South Africa. The findings reveal the core factors that underscore the establishment of an effective tax Ombud in South Africa to include: independence, neutrality, credible review process and confidentiality. Other auxiliary factors with regard to the appointment of the tax Ombud are: leadership skills, honesty, integrity and courage. Furthermore, the provisions of the TAA, in relation to the appointment of the tax Ombud‟s funding, staffing, location, and powers with particular reference to cost recovery and disclosure of taxpayers‟ confidential information, impede on the tax Ombud‟s independence. It also emerged from this study that the independence of the tax Ombud‟s office is being over-emphasised, leaving other pertinent issues of equal importance, such as education and publicity, unattended to. The recommendations for this study revolve on the tax Ombud‟s appointment, budget and recruitment of its own staff, building a reputation of independence through public education and the power to recover costs. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

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.