FREE | Read the May 2024 edition of Business Law & Tax
Rates boycotts likely to backfire as court rules on difference between disputing an amount and poor service provision; count the opportunity cost before taking on Sars in court
20 May 2024 - 14:43
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
In a Westville Ratepayers Association vs eThekwini Municipality dispute the court held that the association’s dispute was one over tariff increases and municipal mismanagement, and did not concern a specific amount claimed by the municipality. The association had submitted a list of complaints, which were repeated in the submission of the dispute as the premise for the rates boycott, including water wastage and an increase in municipal debt.
The court held that the association was embarking on a payment boycott while demanding the provision of services, a matter falling entirely outside the application of section 102(2), which prevents debt collection of a specific amount during a dispute, and about which entirely different legal principles apply. The application was dismissed.
According to Sars, in this fiscal year 110 judgments were handed down in which Sars was successful in 94 cases — resulting in an 84% litigation success rate. On the face of it, this means that Sars wins eight out of 10 times against taxpayers when a tax case is decided by a court. This high success rate has been the trend for the past few years. This is something that taxpayers and their advisers must take into consideration whenever they are considering taking Sars to court on their decisions.
We also look at how virtual property places a unique demands on estate planning. Some of the more obvious digital assets which have commercial value include crypto assets, e-commerce platforms, websites and domain names. For individuals seeking to ensure that their heirs can derive benefits from these assets, addressing their inclusion in estate planning is paramount. It is important to make appropriate provision for how your digital assets are to be regulated upon your death.
More on these stories and others, available in this month's Business Law & Tax.
Browse through the full publication below (zoom in or go full screen for ease of reading):
Also listen to our Business Law Focus podcasts, hosted by Evan Pickworth:
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
FREE | Read the May 2024 edition of Business Law & Tax
Rates boycotts likely to backfire as court rules on difference between disputing an amount and poor service provision; count the opportunity cost before taking on Sars in court
In a Westville Ratepayers Association vs eThekwini Municipality dispute the court held that the association’s dispute was one over tariff increases and municipal mismanagement, and did not concern a specific amount claimed by the municipality. The association had submitted a list of complaints, which were repeated in the submission of the dispute as the premise for the rates boycott, including water wastage and an increase in municipal debt.
The court held that the association was embarking on a payment boycott while demanding the provision of services, a matter falling entirely outside the application of section 102(2), which prevents debt collection of a specific amount during a dispute, and about which entirely different legal principles apply. The application was dismissed.
According to Sars, in this fiscal year 110 judgments were handed down in which Sars was successful in 94 cases — resulting in an 84% litigation success rate. On the face of it, this means that Sars wins eight out of 10 times against taxpayers when a tax case is decided by a court. This high success rate has been the trend for the past few years. This is something that taxpayers and their advisers must take into consideration whenever they are considering taking Sars to court on their decisions.
We also look at how virtual property places a unique demands on estate planning. Some of the more obvious digital assets which have commercial value include crypto assets, e-commerce platforms, websites and domain names. For individuals seeking to ensure that their heirs can derive benefits from these assets, addressing their inclusion in estate planning is paramount. It is important to make appropriate provision for how your digital assets are to be regulated upon your death.
More on these stories and others, available in this month's Business Law & Tax.
Browse through the full publication below (zoom in or go full screen for ease of reading):
Also listen to our Business Law Focus podcasts, hosted by Evan Pickworth:
READ PREVIOUS EDITIONS:
FREE | Read the April 2024 edition of Business Law & Tax
FREE | Read the March 2024 edition of Business Law & Tax
FREE | Read the February 2024 edition of Business Law & Tax
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.