The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that the South African Revenue Service cannot alter its case after issuing a tax assessment, reinforcing the importance of factual accuracy in tax law.
Image: Timothy Bernard / Independent Newspapers
In a judgment that will matter far beyond one taxpayer’s dispute, the Supreme Court of Appeal has sent a clear message to Sars: you cannot issue a tax assessment on one set of facts and then, once the litigation starts, try to rebuild the case on another.
The case, Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Erasmus, arose from dividends of more than R1.2 billion paid by Treemo (Pty) Ltd to businessman Pieter Erasmus. Sars believed the transactions behind those dividends formed part of an impermissible tax avoidance arrangement under South Africa’s General Anti-Avoidance Rule, or GAAR. It assessed Erasmus for about R183.5 million in dividends tax, plus understatement penalties of roughly R137.6 million and interest.
At first, Sars’s case was built around one central allegation: that a Newshelf share repurchase sat at the heart of the arrangement and that the money generated through that repurchase ultimately flowed through Treemo to Erasmus, while old STC credits were used to wipe out the dividends tax that would otherwise have been payable. That was the case set out in SARS’s section 80J notice and repeated in the assessment.
But that is not where the story ended.
When the dispute moved into the appeal stage, Sars changed course. In its Rule 31 statement, it abandoned the original factual engine of its case. No longer, it said, was the dividend funding sourced from the Newshelf repurchase. Instead, Sars accepted that the money came from a trust share subscription, linked to a call option arrangement and a circular flow of funds. It also changed the tax remedy it wanted to impose, while still aiming at the same tax bill.
That shift proved fatal.
The SCA held that Sars had gone too far. The court found that section 80J(4) allows Sars to revise or modify its reasons only before it issues a GAAR assessment, not afterwards. Once the assessment has been raised, Sars cannot use later litigation documents to rewrite the factual foundation of the case. The court also made it clear that a Rule 31 statement is not a back door through which Sars may introduce what is, in substance, a new GAAR assessment.
For taxpayers, the meaning of the judgment is straightforward and important.
This is not a ruling that tax avoidance is acceptable. It is not a ruling that Sars cannot use GAAR. And it is not a final endorsement of Erasmus’s underlying structure. What it is is a firm statement that Sars must get its facts, its legal basis, and its remedy right before it assesses. It cannot shift the goalposts once the taxpayer is already in the fight.
That matters because GAAR is one of the most powerful weapons in Sars’s arsenal. It allows the revenue authority to attack arrangements it believes are tax-driven, even where the transactions may appear valid on their face. But with that power comes discipline. The taxpayer is entitled to know exactly what case must be answered.
The real significance of Erasmus is therefore bigger than one wealthy taxpayer and one large assessment. It is about the rule of law in tax administration. Sars has wide powers, but not unlimited powers. And when it comes to GAAR, the courts have now made it plain: Sars must build the right case at the right time, or risk losing it.
PERSONAL FINANCE