Monday, 11 July 2016

Burden of Proof in Tax Dispute

Prior to the coming into force of the Tax Administration Act (‘TAA’) on 1 October 2012, the burden of proof in tax matters was regulated by way of section 82 of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’). 

Under section 82 the burden of proof was on the taxpayer to show that an amount was either taxable or exempt or that any deduction was allowable under the Act. Historically when a taxpayer challenged the imposition of additional tax the burden of proof effectively fell on the taxpayer. 

With the introduction of the TAA this changed by virtue of section 102 of that Act which now provides that the burden of proof regarding facts on which the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) based the imposition of an understatement penalty under chapter 16 of the TAA is on SARS. Clearly, where a tax dispute relates to whether an amount is deductible or not or is exempt or not otherwise taxable, the burden of proof remains on the taxpayer.

However, where SARS imposes the understatement penalty, the burden of proof lies on SARS and in a tax dispute before the Tax Court, SARS is required to commence the proceedings where after the taxpayer is entitled to respond. In all other disputes, the burden of proof lies on the taxpayer and the taxpayer is required to commence proceedings.

In the case of Mrs X v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, case number: 13380 decided by the Tax Court in Johannesburg on 27 January 2016 as yet unreported, an appeal was lodged against the imposition of the penalty of R5 456 484.60 imposed under section 76 of the Act. In this case the penalty was imposed prior to the coming into force of the TAA as the penalty related to the 2009 year of assessment but the dispute was regulated by section 129(2)(b) of the TAA. 

The Tax Court had to deal with points in limine before considering the merits of the case. The two points in limine argued by the parties related to the incidence of the burden of proof pertaining to the imposition of additional tax and whether the duty to commence illegal proceedings was on the applicant, that is the taxpayer or on SARS. As indicated above, the penalty was imposed under section 76 of the Act, and that Act was repealed with effect from 1 October 2012 by way of section 270(2)(d) of the TAA. Section 270(2)(d) of the TAA contains transitional rules regulating the conclusion of actions or proceedings taken or instituted under the provisions of a tax act repealed  by the TAA but not competed by 1 October 2012 and states clearly that the acts or proceedings must be continued or concluded under the provisions of the TAA as if they were taken or instituted under that Act.

SARS subjected the taxpayer to 100 % additional tax in terms of section 76 of the Act and that decision was made by SARS in terms of the law as it was prior to 1 October 2012. The objection, disallowance of objection and appeal were all lodged prior to 1 October 2012 when the TAA came into force. 

Prior to the coming into force of the TAA the burden of proof was always on the taxpayer under section 82 of the Act. The Court reviewed various cases dealing with the position where one statute is repealed and replaced by another. SARS sought to argue that the transitional provisions in the TAA required the taxpayer to discharge the onus of proof regarding the imposition of the penalty. 

The Tax Court did not agree with SARS’s argument in this regard and noted that the appeal was only being dealt with three years after the TAA took effect. The Court therefore decided that the provisions of section 102(2) and 129(3) of the TAA dealing with the burden of proof is applicable when dealing with penalties imposed and apply to the dispute under consideration.
Prior to the coming into force of the TAA 
the burden of proof was always on the taxpayer 
Image purchased from www.iStock.com ©iStock.com/"conflict" by alexskopje
 
The Tax Court noted that the provisions of section 102(2) of the TAA have reversed the onus and that SARS has to prove the case regarding the imposition of the penalty. It was pointed out that the sole issue before the court and the present appeal related to the imposition of the additional tax and thus the Court found that the burden of proof pertaining to the imposition of additional tax is upon SARS under the provisions of the TAA and that it has the duty to commence the proceedings in the dispute.

If the dispute related to whether an amount was subject to tax or not or whether a deduction was lawfully claimed the onus of proof would have been on the taxpayer and the taxpayer would have been required to commence the proceedings in the Tax Court. However by virtue of the fact that the dispute related only to the imposition of additional tax SARS was required to commence the proceedings relating thereto.

The Court considered the imposition of the penalty by SARS and the reduction thereof from 100 % to 50 % and taking account of SARS evidence as well as the taxpayers’ arguments decided to reduce the penalty to 35 %.

Furthermore, counsel for the taxpayer contended that SARS should pay the costs of the litigation on an attorney and client scale. Pretorius J decided that SARS had not acted vexatiously or wrongly by contesting the taxpayer’s appeal and therefore decided that no order should be made as to costs.

It must be noted that section 130 of the TAA regulates the award of costs by the Tax Court. Generally, the parties to a tax dispute namely, the taxpayer and SARS, will pay their own legal costs unless the requirements set out in section 130 are met where the court is entitled to award costs to a party.

It is important that taxpayers take note of this decision and remember that where penalties are imposed the onus of proof in litigation lies on SARS insofar the imposition of the penalty is concerned and not on the taxpayer.

Dr Beric Croome is a Tax Executive  at ENSafrica. This article first appeared in Business Day, Business Law and Tax Review, July 2016

Monday, 13 June 2016

Court Orders Taxpayer to Respond to Sars Request to Complete the Lifestyle Questionnaire

The Eastern Cape Division of the High Court delivered judgment on 5 May in the case of Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v J Brown, case no 561/2016, as yet unreported, directing the taxpayer to submit a response to the Lifestyle Questionnaire submitted to him by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”).

According to the judgment, Mr Brown was not registered for tax purposes and had never submitted tax returns to SARS. SARS made an application to the court requesting that the court direct the taxpayer to respond to the Lifestyle Questionnaire and the taxpayer contended that he had shown just cause for his refusal to respond to the Lifestyle Questionnaire.

SARS submitted the Lifestyle Questionnaire to the taxpayer on 19 October 2015, and the taxpayer was required to submit the completed questionnaire to SARS within 21 business days. The letter indicated that the period of investigation covered the 2011-2015 tax years and that SARS was in the process of reviewing the taxpayer’s file and that the information was requested in terms of section 46(1) of the Tax Administration Act (‘TAA’).

The court indicated that the Lifestyle Questionnaire comprised 26 pages and that the first page thereof draws the taxpayer’s attention to the provisions of section 72(1) of the TAA which provides that a taxpayer may not refuse to complete and file a return on the basis that to do so may incriminate the taxpayer. 

The information requested by SARS related to the taxpayer and his wife’s personal particulars and circumstances, personal and private investments and assets as well as properties owned by him and his spouse together with income received during the period under review and any expenses incurred. 

The taxpayer’s attorneys responded to SARS letter on 5 November 2015 and in that letter reminded SARS of its statutory obligations towards taxpayers and requested confirmation that SARS will keep the respondent informed of the progress and findings of any audits and that he will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the findings thereof. 

The taxpayer’s attorneys also required the following information before the taxpayer would reply to SARS’s questionnaire:
  • “In terms of which sections of which law the respondent was obliged to submit the relevant material;
  • If this is for administration of any tax law, the relevant subsection of that definition in section 3(2) of the Act, must be quoted, supported by the underlying facts and circumstances that make the enquiry foreseeably relevant with the reasonable specificity as required by the Act;
  • Adequate reasons for the questionnaire, investigation and audit and why it is being conducted, including the underlying risk analysis for the industry  the taxpayers is in, on which this audit is based; and
  •  Copy of the SARS id’s and letters of the of the SARS assessors as well as the line manager involved in the matter.”
SARS was informed that the taxpayer would also submit a formal request for the above information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act. (‘PAIA”)

SARS subsequently replied to the taxpayer’s letter reminding his attorney’s about the taxpayer’s statutory obligation to pay the prescribed fee under PAIA and stating that the request for information under the law would not be processed until the prescribed fee had been paid. 

Further correspondence passed between SARS attorneys and the taxpayer’s attorneys with SARS reminding the taxpayer’s attorneys that the taxpayer had a duty to respond to SARS request for information.

The taxpayer‘s attorneys indicated that the request to complete the questionnaire constituted administrative action and was subject to the principle of legality and that the taxpayer had just cause not to respond to the request because the information requested by him had not been provided to him and thus he was entitled to assume that the exercise of a power in terms of section 46 of the TAA had not been properly authorised.  
The court directed the taxpayer to submit a proper response
to the Lifestyle Questionnaire within two weeks 

Image purchased from www.iStock.com ©iStock.com/"gavel and book" by khz
The taxpayer indicated that he would only reply to SARS’s request for completion of the Lifestyle Questionnaire once the information requested in terms of PAIA had been supplied by SARS.

SARS agreed to supply copies of the SARS identification cards but refused access to the remainder of the records and information required by the taxpayer. SARS declined the request of that information on the basis that disclosure thereof would jeopardise the effectiveness of SARS auditing procedures and methods used by SARS to identify taxpayers.

It was argued by SARS that the provisions of section 46 are peremptory and that a taxpayer has no choice but to submit the information where SARS calls for information under that section. SARS raised various reasons contending why the taxpayer was obliged to supply the information requested. 

The taxpayer in return contended that SARS was seeking to conduct an unlawful fishing exhibition and was not entitled to the information as the request constituted an infringement of the taxpayer‘s constitutional rights set out in the Bill of Rights.

The court reviewed the arguments raised by SARS and the taxpayer, and came to the conclusion that the issuing of the Lifestyle Questionnaire was done in the course of the administration of a tax Act andwas therefore satisfied that all of the jurisdictional facts contained in section 46 had been complied with. 

The taxpayer contended that the request for information constituted administrative action which was protected by the right to just administrative action. SARS argued that the request for information under section 46 of the TAA constituted a preliminary investigation by SARS which may or may not result in a more formal inquiry into the taxpayer’s affairs. 

The court decided that it is only once the information has been received by SARS and it has been established that a further inquiry is required that the principles of administrative justice must be observed. 

The court concluded that SARS had provided sound reasons for its decision to issue the Lifestyle Questionnaire particularity taking account of the fact that the taxpayer was not registered and had failed to submit tax returns. The Court decided that the refusal by SARS to make information available to the taxpayer under PAIA was justified.

The court directed the taxpayer to comply with section 46 of the TAA and submit a proper response to the Lifestyle Questionnaire within two weeks of granting of the order in question. The court further ruled that should the taxpayer fail to submit the completed Lifestyle questionnaire, he would be held in contempt and will be committed to imprisonment until such time as he complies with the court order. 

In addition, the taxpayer was also ordered to pay SARS costs of the suit on the party and party scale.

Thus, taxpayers who decide not to submit information requested to do so by SARS under section 46, need to be aware that such behaviour will not be condoned by court.

Dr Beric Croome is a Tax Executive  at ENSafrica. This article first appeared in Business Day, Business Law and Tax Review, June 2016

Thursday, 5 May 2016

News Update

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS


I'm delighted that Juta Law ‪Tax‬ Administration 2nd edition
is now a prescribed text
 for Unisa's College of Accounting Masters students 


I'd like to thank my clients, my empoyer ENSafrica, 
my colleagues and professional associates, 
and my family and friends for the overwhelming support 
and encouragement during my recent illness. 
I have returned to work part-time and
look forward to soon being back at full strength.
Social Media and Blog posts should return to normal from July 2016
***

Monday, 11 April 2016

Special Voluntary Disclosure Programme: The Last Chance To Regularise Unauthorised Foreign Assets

The Minister of Finance released details of the proposed Special Voluntary Disclosure Programme (“SVDP”)  when he introduced his budget on 24 February 2016. The SVDP will allow those taxpayers who hold assets abroad which are not known to the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) and/or  the South African Reserve Bank (“SARB”) to regularise those assets on reasonable terms.

The world has become a smaller place since 9/11 and also as a result of the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes internationally. South Africa is regarded as an early adopter of the Common Reporting Standard (‘CRS’) which comprises the standard for the automatic exchange of financial account information developed by the OECD. 

South Africa will start
  •  to report financial information during the first half of 2017 in respect of accounts held as at 31 December 2016. The remaining countries which include, for example, Monaco, Switzerland and others will implement the CRS with effect from 1 January 2017 and require their first reports to be made in the first half of 2018 in respect of the period from 1 January 2017. 
  • to receive information from Switzerland and other countries, other than the early adopters, in 2018 regarding financial information relating to accounts held in that country. 
Thus, the SVDP announced by the Minister represents the last opportunity for taxpayers to regularise unauthorised assets held abroad before SARS receives information from foreign revenue authorities regarding funds held offshore.

The SVDP is contained in the 2016 Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill, and deals with both the income tax and exchange control aspects of the regularisation process.

Currently, the Tax Administration Act contains as a permanent feature of law a Voluntary Disclose  Programme (‘VDP”), but that does not deal with exchange control issues, nor does it have any cut off insofar as interest payable by taxpayers is concerned, nor does it restrict the period for which taxpayers are required to go back to.

The SVDP is attractive in that those amounts that were removed from South Africa without income tax being paid thereon will not be fully taxed, such that only 50 per cent of the capital amount removed from the country is liable to tax in the first year of assessment ending after 1 March 2010 – that is the 2011 tax year. 

Where, for example, a taxpayer removed pre-tax amounts totalling R1 million over an extended period of time before 1 March 2010, 50 per cent thereof, that is R 500 000 will be liable to tax in the 2011 tax year at the rate of tax applicable then. 

The remaining R 500 000 will effectively not be taxed. Furthermore, interest payable on the amounts previously taxed will run form 1 March 2010 which is better than the current VDP where there is no limiting of the interest that may become payable by a taxpayer.

Those persons applying for relief under the SVDP must note that all amounts of dividends, foreign dividends, interest or other similar investment income received accrued on or after 1 March 2010 must be disclosed and will be liable to tax. However, any investment income derived before 1 March 2010 is effectively exempt and not liable to tax.

Any natural person (including the deceased estate of a natural person), a close corporation or company is entitled to apply for the SVDP where that taxpayer held a foreign asset on 29 February 2016, the value of which related to any unauthorised asset which comprises an amount not previously known to SARS or to the SARB .

 Persons who hold hidden funds abroad urged to utilise the SVDP
to regularise their affairs in South Africa

Image purchased from www.iStock.com ©iStock.com/
Maxiphoto
Foreign trusts are not able to apply for SVDP directly but the person who made funds available by way of a donation to a foreign trust will be entitled to apply for relief where that applicant accepts that the assets owned  by the foreign trust are deemed to be held by that applicant for tax income purposes only. This is very similar to the provisions which applied at the time of the amnesty which was available in 2003.

Where a person has removed funds from South African in contravention of the Exchange Control Regulations they may regularise their position with the SARB by paying a levy of 5 per cent on the market value of the foreign assets as at 29 February 2016 where those assets are returned to South Africa. If the applicant chooses to retain their assets abroad, the levy payable is increased to 10 per cent of the value of the foreign assets held abroad. 

It must be noted that the foreign investment allowance, currently an amount of R10 million per person per year, is not deducted from the value of the foreign assets liable to the levy. Where the applicant is unable to settle the exchange control levy from foreign based funds, the levy will be increased by 2 per cent to the extent that local assets are utilised to pay the levy due to the South African Reserve Bank.

Those persons who choose to utilise the SVDP will be in a favourable position in that they can regularise their affairs with both SARS and the SARB without any fear of a criminal prosecution and on what I believe is a reasonable basis. 

Applicants may lodge applications from 10 October 2016 and must adhere to the deadline and closing date of the SVDP of 31 March 2017. Those persons who hold funds abroad which are not known to the authorities in South Africa are urged to utilise the SVDP to regularise their affairs in South Africa. Failure to do so will result in the authorities becoming aware of the funds held abroad as a result of the automatic exchange of information and in such a case those taxpayers will be liable to the significant understatement penalties which may be imposed under the Tax Administration Act and could face criminal prosecution. 

In the case of violations of exchange control  those persons who choose not to regularise their affairs could be required to pay levies ranging from 10 - 40 per cent of the current market value of the unauthorised foreign assets they own. Persons wishing to apply for relief under the VDP need to start collating financial information sooner rather than later for submission to SARS and SARB that they can meet the tight deadline.

Dr Beric Croome is a Tax Executive  at ENSafrica. This article first appeared in Business Day, Business Law and Tax Review, April 2016. 

Monday, 14 March 2016

Request by SARS for Information from South African Taxpayers Regarding Related Parties Abroad

In terms of chapter 5 of the Tax Administration Act No. 22 of 2011 (the “TAA”), the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) is empowered to seek information from taxpayers to ensure that the returns that they have submitted to SARS are complete.

Originally, the TAA did not provide a means for SARS to compel taxpayers to supply information relating to foreign related entities. In practice, SARS would request information from taxpayers pertaining to overseas subsidiaries or on other occasions indicate that they wished to conduct an audit in the country in which the foreign subsidiary was located. 

It is clear from a review of South African and international law that SARS’ powers do not extend beyond the borders of South Africa and that it would have been unlawful for SARS officials to arrive in a foreign country to conduct an audit on a company or entity located abroad. That is the reason why States conclude double taxation agreements to eliminate double taxation but also to allow for co-operation between States and to receive information from a taxpayer located in one jurisdiction for transmission to a revenue authority in another country. 

Thus, SARS could only procure information from another country under either a bi-lateral tax treaty or in accordance with the Convention On Mutual Administrative Assistance In Tax Matters which allows for a revenue authority in one country to seek assistance from another revenue authority to audit and investigate the affairs of the taxpayer located in the other country.

Countries such as Canada and Australia have historically had provisions in their fiscal legislation allowing the revenue authority to request information from domestic taxpayers regarding entities related to the domestic taxpayer which are located abroad. 

It was therefore no surprise that section 46 of the TAA was amended by way of section 42 of the Tax Administration Laws Amendment Act No. 23 of 2015 which now confers on SARS the power to call for information from a South African taxpayer in respect of a connected person located abroad.

Thus, section 46 (2) now provides that a senior SARS official may require relevant material from a taxpayer held or maintained by a connected person as defined in paragraph (d)(i) of the definition of connected person contained in section 1 of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, as amended in relation to the taxpayer where that person is located outside South Africa.

The definition of connected person is comprehensive and this article does not seek to analyse the scope of that definition but taxpayers must remember that the connected person definition particularly in relation to a company is very wide and clearly would apply where, for example, a South African company owns more than 50 % of the equity shares or voting rights in a company located abroad, or meets certain other requirements specified in paragraph (d)(i) of the definition of connected person.

Section 46 also regulates the time period within which information located abroad must be provided to SARS. Where the information is held by a connected person in relation to a South African taxpayer, the taxpayer must supply the information within 90 days from the dates of SARS’ request for the information and it is important that SARS when calling for the information relating to the connected person located abroad sets out the consequences should the taxpayer fail to provide the information requested. 

It must be noted that the time period referred to is 90 days and not business days as defined in section 1 of the TAA and thus in determining the period available within which to respond taxpayers would need to take account of calendar days and not business days.

Where a taxpayer fails to provide the information requested by SARS in accordance with section 46 of the TAA it must be noted that the material in question may not be produced by the taxpayer in any subsequent proceedings with SARS unless a competent court directs otherwise on the basis of circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer and any connected person referred to in paragraph (d)(i) of the definition of connected person as defined in the Income Tax Act in relation to the taxpayer.
Image purchased from www.iStock.com ©iStock.com/stocknshares
It is interesting to note that other countries have a similar provision that where a taxpayer declines to provide information relating to a foreign related entity that information cannot be used in subsequent proceedings against the revenue authority of that country. 

Thus, Section 46 (9) of the TAA which provides that information may not be used by the taxpayer should they not make it available to SARS is not uncommon.

It is important to remember also that that where a taxpayer is assessed by SARS , the onus is on the taxpayer in accordance with section 102 of the TAA to prove that an amount, transaction, event or item is exempt or otherwise not taxable, or that an amount or item is deductible or maybe set off. 

Thus, should a taxpayer not provide the information to SARS it may become very difficult for the taxpayer to discharge the burden of proof as prescribed in section 102 of the TAA.

In addition, the failure to provide information to SARS is specifically regarded as a criminal offence under section 234 of the TAA. 

Thus, taxpayers should not lightly refuse or neglect to furnish information to SARS when called upon to do so, including information relating to a connected person located abroad.

In addition, the failure to provide information, particularly information held by a connected person abroad, could be construed as obstructive and result in an increase in the understatement penalty which SARS may seek to impose if SARS adjusts the taxable income of the taxpayer.

Thus, taxpayers who are requested to provide information held or kept by a connected person as envisaged in section 46 read together with the definition of connected person in section 1 of the Income Tax Act need to be aware of the consequences should they fail to provide the information to SARS timeously.

Dr Beric Croome is a Tax Executive  at ENSafrica. This article first appeared in Business Day, Business Law and Tax Review, March 2016. 

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

New Release : "Income Tax in South Africa: The First Hundred Years (1914 - 2014)"

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Please note due to serious health issues 
blog posts and social media will be irregular for the early part of 2016.
I'd like to thank my clients, my empoyer ENSafrica, 
my colleagues and professional associates, 
and my family and friends for the continued support 
and encouragement during this time. 
I look forward to soon returning at full strength.
***
A new monthly article will be published in March 2016
***

In 2014, twenty years since South Africa became a constitutional democracy, 
the University of Cape Town marked this milestone with 
the "INCOME TAX IN SOUTH AFRICA: THE FIRST 100 YEARS 1914 – 2014" conference.  
I was privileged to be part of this special occasion 
and presented a paper called 
"The shift to a constitutional democracy in 1994 and the impact thereof on tax law in SA." 
This paper (see Part 6: Constitutional, policy and gender issues)
together with all the other conference papers, 
has now been published by Juta Law.
You can buy your copy here - further information below. 

Income Tax in South Africa The First 100 Years (1914 - 2014)
Edition: 1st
Expected publication date: 17 February 2016
Editors: J Hattingh, J Roeleveld, C West
ISBN: 978 1 48510 779 8
Format: Soft cover
Extent: 506 pages
Retail price: R550   (Price incl. VAT, excl. courier delivery and is valid until 30 June 2016)

About this publication:

This book, marking the 2014 centenary of income tax in South Africa, presents historical research covering a range of topics.

The authors begin with the international origins of income tax law and the transformation of old Dutch taxes into colonial income tax, and the role of General Smuts in the introduction of income tax in 1914.

The struggle to find an appropriate means of taxing corporate profits of shareholders is shown to have continued for decades, and mining and farming as main industry players in the South African economy receive special attention. The demise of cooperatives, the history of international tax treaties and the colonial influence also form part of the historical journey of this publication.

An examination of the special qualities of leading judges of the time and their jurisprudence provides much food for thought. Policy debates such as whether South Africa should follow the source or the residence system of taxation, or introduce a land tax, rage today as they did in 1914.

The impact of transformation since 1994, the need to entrench taxpayers’ rights and to remove gender inequality, and the remarkable modernisation of SARS, all played an important part in the development of the South African tax system.

A book about one hundred years of income tax would not be complete without some biographical notes on key personalities such as CJ Ingram KC, Aubrey Silke and David Meyerowitz SC. In recognising the conference held at the University of Cape Town to mark one hundred years of income tax in South Africa, the rise of the teaching of tax at UCT is presented in the form of an extract from the memoirs of Prof Leon Kritzinger.

“I congratulate the authors and editors for their work in this book. Not only will it be the standard reference on the development of income tax in South Africa, but also, for those interested in tax as a vital social and economic issue, it provides entertaining, informative and enlightening reading.’’ – Richard Vann, Challis Professor of Law, University of Sydney
                                                                    
Contents include:

Part 1: The international origins of income tax in South Africa and its introduction               
·       Importing and exporting income tax law: The international origins of the South African Income Tax Act – Peter Harris          
·       The history of income taxation in the Cape Colony: A story of dangerous beasts and murderous fathers – Enelia Jansen van Rensburg
·       On the introduction of income tax in South Africa by JC Smuts: Three eventful months (24 April 1914 to 20 July 1914) – Johann Hattingh
·       The birth of the first Income Tax Act: The journey begins – Peter Surtees
Part 2: The taxation of companies, shareholders and partnerships                           
·       Corporate-shareholder taxation in South Africa: 1914 to 1961 – Johann Hattingh
·       The road to dividend withholding tax in South African income tax law (1962 to 2014) – Jennifer Roeleveld
·       A review of the taxation of partnerships in South Africa over the last 100 years - Afton Titus
Part 3: The taxation of mining, farming and co-operative enterprises
·       South Africa’s gold mining tax regime – Roshelle Ramfol
·       The history of the taxation of farming in South Africa – Charl du Toit
·       The development of the taxation of co-operatives – Tracy Johnson, Jennifer Roeleveld
Part 4: Income tax jurisprudence
·       A century of income tax jurisprudence in South Africa – Eddie Broomberg
·       Some missteps on South Africa’s road to a coherent income tax jurisprudence – RC Williams
Part 5: International tax
·       From colonialism to apartheid: International influence on tax treaties in South Africa (1932 to 1990) – Craig West
·       Ensuring a right balance in applying the residence and source bases of taxation in order to protect South Africa’s tax base – Annet Wanyana Oguttu
Part 6: Constitutional, policy and gender issues
·       The shift to a constitutional democracy in 1994 and the impact thereof on tax law in South Africa – Beric J Croome
·       Land tax versus income tax: A historical assessment of success and failure in South Africa – Nicolaus Tideman and Peter Meakin
·       The personal income taxation of women in South Africa: An overview since the 1970s – Elizabeth Gavin and Wynnona Steyn
Part 7: Major figures in the development of income tax in South Africa
·       CJ Ingram K.C.: Academic pioneer and second President of the Cape Tax Court – Albertus Marais
·       Aubrey Silke Adapted courtesy of the South African Institute of Tax Practitioners
·       David Meyerowitz SC Adapted courtesy of the South African Institute of Tax Practitioners
·       Memoirs of Prof. Leon Kritzinger: Aubrey Silke and the importance of postgraduate tax studies at the University of Cape Town – Leon Kritzinger
Part 8: The evolution of the South African Revenue Service: 1994 to 2014 - SARS                           
Table of cases
Table of statutes


Of interest and benefit to:
·       Tax academics and post-graduate students
·       Tax practitioners
·       Tax historians and researchers