TAX DISPUTE RES 0 LUTION WEBINAR Dispute Resolution

TAX DISPUTE RES 0 LUTION WEBINAR Dispute Resolution within the scope of the Constitution, Administrative Justice and Case Law Developments in Practice DR DANIEL ERASMUS; SCHALK PIETERSE

Introduction � The subject matter and purpose of this presentation is simply stated - to identify current challenges, issues and recent developments in the Dispute Resolution process with reference to the Constitution, recent case law, developing principles and Administrative Justice.

Agenda � Summary of Intended topics • • • • • Dispute Resolution Flow chart Request for Reasons; Issues with assessments; Section 42 Letter of Audit Findings When is an assessments issued by SARS invalid? When is an assessments issued by SARS unconstitutional? How do you actually invalidate an assessment issued by SARS, that you suspect to be invalid? What happens if SARS fail to get back to you once an objection or appeal has been filed? What to do when ADR proceedings are not being finalized? How to deal with unreasonable delays on SARS’ part? Why are the TAA and procedure (PAJA) so important vs Substantive law? What happens if the time period for raising an additional assessment has lapsed? Can you take default judgment against SARS for failure to act? Section 7(1)(a) of the VAT Act and supporting documents (ties in with cloud storage) “Exceptional circumstances” in late filing and condonation cases Internal tax set offs Extracts from the case law under discussion

Overview � � All these topical issues are contained in the following recently decided cases and amendments of the TAA: Approach: Look at the Dispute Resolution process in overview, and consider the current issues that we are facing in the process, and how to address them; What case law supports us? What is the BOTTOM LINE message of the Judgment or amendment AND what are the PRACTICAL Implications in our every day practice and use • • IT 13726 “The Section 42 Judgment” ABC Judgment ITC 0038/2015 Jazz Festival case S Company case A Way to Explore Section 179(5) Section 164(6)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION FLOW CHART (SARS: GUIDE ON THE RULES PROMULGATED IN TERMS OF SECTION 103 OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT, 2011)

REQUEST FOR REASONS � Your request is made in terms of Rule 6 within 30 days � You make it in the prescribed form and you submit your request within 30 days, if you need more time to request reasons, ask for an extension in terms of Rule 6(3) for another 45 days. HOWEVER � R 6(4) Where a SARS official is satisfied that the reasons required to enable the taxpayer to formulate an objection have been provided, SARS must, within 30 days after delivery of the request, notify the taxpayer accordingly which notice must refer to the documents wherein the reasons were provided. � R 6(5) Where in the opinion of a SARS official the reasons required to enable the taxpayer to formulate an objection have not been provided, SARS must provide the reasons within 45 days after delivery of the request for reasons. � So what happens if they fail to abide by these Rules which is often the case ion that no response I received? � You apply Rule 56, and you apply to the High Court for Default Judgment against SARS!!! � Non-compliance with any Rule, time period or obligation in terms of the Rules promulgated under section 103 of the TAA entitles you to approach the Tax Court and ask for default judgment! � What do practitioners do – write another 50 emails asking for a response or answer � Go back to flow chart, go back to Rule 6(4) and Rule 6(5)

RULE 56 DEFAULT JUDGMENT Section 56 56. Application for default judgment in the event of non-compliance with rules. — (1) If a party has failed to comply with a period or obligation prescribed under these rules or an order by the tax court under this Part, the other party may— (a) deliver a notice to the defaulting party informing the party of the intention to apply to the tax court for a final order under section 129 (2) of the Act in the event that the defaulting party fails to remedy the default within 15 days of delivery of the notice; and (b) if the defaulting party fails to remedy the default within the prescribed period, apply, on notice to the defaulting party, to the tax court for a final order under section 129 (2) The tax court may, on hearing the application— (a) in the absence of good cause shown by the defaulting party for the default in issue make an order under section 129 (2); or (b) make an order compelling the defaulting party to comply with the relevant requirement within such time as the court considers appropriate and, if the defaulting party fails to abide by the court’s order by the due date, make an order under section 129 (2) without further notice to the defaulting party. �

Rule 56 DEFAULT JUDGMENT � PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS � Section 129. Decision by tax court. —(1) The tax court, after hearing the ‘appellant’s’ appeal lodged under section 107 against an assessment or ‘decision’, must decide the matter on the basis that the burden of proof as described in section 102 is upon the taxpayer. (2) In the case of an assessment or ‘decision’ under appeal or an application in a procedural matter referred to in section 117 (3), the tax court may— (a) confirm the assessment or ‘decision’; (b) order the assessment or ‘decision’ to be altered; or (c) refer the assessment back to SARS for further examination and assessment. � Section 117. Jurisdiction of tax court. —(1) The tax court for purposes of this Chapter has jurisdiction over tax appeals lodged under section 107. (2) The place where an appeal is heard is determined by the ‘rules’. (3) The court may hear and decide an interlocutory application or an application in a procedural matter relating to a dispute under this Chapter as provided for in the ‘rules’. � Owing to these section if an Appeal OR AN OBJECTION is not decided you should bring it within the jurisdiction of the Tax Court for a decision under section 127 read with section 117(3) � By no means does case give a guarantee. It sets out numerous jurisdictional factors that we as practitioners must consider and use, in cases where the facts of our case might warrant an application for default Judgment. The case refers to standards of proof, and relevant factors that we should look at and use/ consider in order to enable the TP to bring such a default application. The Judgment is quite lengthy and the defaults and provisions were exhaustive and had to be considered carefully by the judge before finding a favour of the Taxpayer. But in principle its good to know that there is a remedy in sanction available in the absence of statutory provisions, by way of the precedent case law, that we can use to hold SARS officials accountable.

S Company Judgment IT 0122 WC � BOTTOM LINE FINDING � The TAA is silent on what happens to SARS official if they fail to follow the rules. This case entitles the TP to get “default Judgment” against SARS based on your grounds of objection, appeal when they fail to act, to adjudicate or to revert. � In this case SARS failed to file the Rule 31 statement after the Notice of Appeal lodged in terms of section 107(1). – taxpayer took default judgement for original assessment to stand

REQUEST FOR REASONS � Alternative Remedy: Constitution, PAJA and Case Law – Remember you can also request adequate reasons in terms of section 5 of PAJA and they must comply failing which you can apply to the High Court for reasons to be given, or for the decision to be declared irrational and judicially reviewable � If a request for adequate reasons goes unanswered, you may accept that the decision taken was taken without good reason, and that the decision is irrational, unlawful and falls to be set aside � SARS bound by Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA”) � What does PAJA state on Reasons? � Section 5(3) - If an administrator fails to furnish adequate reasons for an administrative action it must, subject to subsection (4) and in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed in any proceedings for judicial review that the administrative action was taken without good reason. � SARS bound by binding case law: � Sprigg Investments 117 CC t/a Global Investment the Supreme Court of Appeal quoted with approval from Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd and Another v Wraith and Others the requirements for ‘adequate reasons’ in respect of tax matters in South Africa is definitively spelt out by the Supreme Court of Appeal as follows: …[T]he decision-maker [must] explain his decision in a way which will enable a person aggrieved to say, in effect: ‘Even though I may not agree with it, I now understand why the decision went against me. I am now in a position to decide whether that decision has involved an unwarranted finding of fact, or an error of law, which is worth challenging. This requires that the decision-maker should set out his understanding of the relevant law, any findings of fact on which his conclusions depend (especially if those facts have been in dispute), and the reasoning processes which led him to those conclusions. He

ASSESSMENT � The controversial issue we are facing on a daily basis wrt assessments is this: � When must SARS comply with section 42? � When SARS issue an additional assessment, reduced assessment or materially adjust the original assessment in any manner, should that material adjustment fall subject to section 42 of the TAA?

The Section 42 judgment– ITC 13726 � Decided in PE Tax Court � Massive case because we elevated some huge arguments over and above the substantive tax charging provisions in question � The effect of this case is that millions of assessments in South Africa have effectively been invalidated – as we stand here, you probably have multiple additional assessments, issued by SARS, that can be and should be invalided owing to this judgment � SARS internal policies change since the handing down of the Judgment and the internal restructuring because of its has been massive � SARS appealed but withdrew the appeal afterwards.

The Section 42 Judgment– ITC 13726 � BOTTOM LINE � If SARS makes any decision/ material adjustment that affects an assessment in any way pursuant to an audit (desk audit/ internal audit/ mini audit/ large audit/ lifestyle audit) they must comply with section 40 and 42 of the TAA. If they don’t, the assessment is INVALID and unconstitutional and MUST be set aside � In other words, if they change your self declaration in ANY WAY, whether it be by not allowing a single deduction, refusing an input claim or anything, section 40 and 42 must be complied with

Section 42 � 42. Keeping taxpayer informed. —(1) A SARS official involved in or responsible for an audit under this Chapter must, in the form and in the manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner by public notice, provide the taxpayer with a report indicating the stage of completion of the audit. [Sub-s. (1) substituted by s. 48 (a) of Act No. 21 of 2012. ] Wording of Sections (2) Upon conclusion of the audit or a criminal investigation, and where— (a) the audit or investigation was inconclusive, SARS must inform the taxpayer accordingly within 21 business days; or (b) the audit identified potential adjustments of a material nature, SARS must within 21 business days, or the further period that may be required based on the complexities of the audit, provide the taxpayer with a document containing the outcome of the audit, including the grounds for the proposed assessment or decision referred to in section 104 (2). (3) Upon receipt of the document described in subsection (2) (b), the taxpayer must within 21 business days of delivery of the document, or the further period requested by the taxpayer that may be allowed by SARS based on the complexities of the audit, respond in writing to the facts and conclusions set out in the document. (4) The taxpayer may waive the right to receive the document. (5) Subsections (1) and (2) (b) do not apply if a senior SARS official has a reasonable belief that compliance with those subsections would impede or prejudice the purpose, progress or outcome of the audit. (6) SARS may under the circumstances described in subsection (5) issue the assessment or make the decision referred to in section 104 (2) resulting from the audit and the grounds of the assessment or decision must be provided to the taxpayer within 21 business days of the assessment or the decision, or the further period that may be required based on the complexities of the audit or the decision. [Sub-s. (6) substituted by s. 48 (b) of Act No. 21 of 2012. ]

Section 42 Judgment

Section 42 Judgment

Section 42 Judgment � � � � PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS All assessments currently issued without a section 40 notice or section 42 LOF, or that fail to comply with the time periods prescribed in each renders that assessment invalid Nationally, millions of assessments are now deemed to be invalid because of this case That means the original assessment stands as per the return submitted by the taxpayer If the assessment was older than three years (2012 in this case) SARS cannot issue a new assessment (see section 99). The original assessment of 2012 must stand all penalties and interest will fall away. All expenses claimed must be allowed and the severance benefit provision apply to the lump sum pay-out to the executive. 21 days? SARS can issue an additional assessment after 3 years if they can prove fraud; misrepresentation; or non-disclosure of material facts They cannot however not raise fraud M/R or non-disclosure after the 3 year period when the dispute is finalised, or when the grounds for assessment have already been raised. SARS cannot introduce new grounds after the grounds for assessment – Sasol Oil v SARS

Section 42 Judgment � PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS � Substantive law vs Procedural law – the TAA, Constitution and PAJA – should be able to rely on procedural law just as much as rely on substantive law. In many cases (more than substantive law argument cases) you succeed on procedural grounds. This Judgment has now upgraded that arsenal substantially by recognising it and attaching declaratory value to it � Another practical consideration and to an extent implication is that it is - Your responsibility to give effect to the invalidity of these assessments – How are you going to do that? � Any material change – “audit”

Section 42 Judgment � � � � � HOW TO INVALIDATE THE ASSESSMENT? OPTION A Going forward, make Judgment form part of your NOO, NOA, ADR, Tax Board or Tax Court Procedures AND immediately bring an interlocutory complaint to the Tax Ombud OPTION B You have already raised your grounds for appeal and cannot introduce this procedural defence – insofar as they might raise new grounds argument - still raise it and ask for condonation for now raising this point in limine, with reference to exceptional circumstances (we will deal with exceptional circumstances below) OPTION C Its too late to now object or appeal as 30 days have passed since the additional assessment. Bring a High Court Application based on the Section 42 Judgment and declare the additional assessment invalid (can do so at no cost to the TP). NB – HC Application available if internal remedies are no longer available (A Way to Explore case). If you have followed the whole Dispute Resolution process (NOO, NOA etc) process and you were unsuccessful. You can STILL bring the HC Application. If you are following the DR process but its taking too long, You could bring the HC Application. As then stated, if you are out of time to follow any step in the DR process, you can bring the HC application. Failure to exercise above options will result in the TP paying taxes that are otherwise not payable. If you have an opportunity to invalidate a whole assessment then do so.

VERIFICATION vs AUDIT � The procedural appeal turns on the meaning of the words “investigation, verification and audit” in s 40. � S 42 requires a letter of findings at the conclusion of an investigation or audit, if there is a material adjustment. � It says nothing about a verification. � However, a verification means just that - to verify. � If the verification results in a closer look at the tax return triggering a material adjustment, that must and can only be on a subsequent an investigation or audit. The verification transforms to an investigation or audit that causes a material adjustment which means the matter falls squarely into s 42. � Audi Alterum Partem applies, and principle doctrine given effect to by s 42, why should it be any different here? � SARS Compliance survey – please complete this survey:

OBJECTIONS � � File in prescribed format and time period, if you are outside 30 days within 3 years. After 30 days, must show exceptional circumstances. And just take note that you can ask for extension to file an objection. REMEMBER: RULE 9 SARS MUST ADJUDICATE YOUR OBEJCTION WITHIN 60 DAYS! FAILURE TO DO SO – SECTION 129 AND RULE 56 APPLIES, WHICH ENTITLES YOU TO APPLY TO THE TAX COURT FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT � � How many faced with situation where client approaches you after 30 day period and you have to apply for condonation? To do show must show exceptional circumstances. What constitutes exceptional circumstances? ? What constitutes exceptional circumstances and how do you prove it? You meet the jurisdictional factors prescribed in this case, and in section 218 of the TAA (even though it deals with penalties – experts (e. g Beric Croome)have confirmed that it may be used as a guideline and ‘test’ in general cases where one must show exceptional circumstances, and IN 15

ABC Judgment IT 0038/2015 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS � In terms of the case, not just saying there are good prospects of success but explaining in detail why (with supporting documentation – own insertion) is extremely important It was submitted that the objection made by appellant enjoys good prospects of success and I was referred to an opinion apparently prepared by appellant's current representative to his client. This is not a document submitted to SARS prior to the decision of 22 nd June 2015. I regret that it is of little assistance to myself. It is no more than advice to a client - it is not an affidavit to which are attached any relevant documents such as logbooks in respect of vehicles, contracts with employees, contracts with soccer clubs and so on. Nothing is contained in this document which gives this court any indication of the existence of a prima facie case. There is no more than the "mere say-so" of appellant's counsel. See ITC 1777 at page 334 C. None of these submissions persuade me of the existence of 'exceptional circumstances'. They are neither unusual nor causally connected to the delay. Interpretation Note 15 requires SARS officials to consider, inter alia, the reasons for the delay, the length of the delay and the prospects of success of the objection. �

ABC Judgment IT 0038/2015 � PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS � Educate SARS on what factors to consider by referring to the authority and elaborating on each factor or jurisdictional consideration. Bring to their attention ABC Judgment, IN 15 and section 218 and apply all of the factors to your case. 218. Remittance of penalty in exceptional circumstances. —(1) SARS must, upon receipt of a ‘remittance request’, remit the ‘penalty’ or if applicable a portion thereof, if SARS is satisfied that one or more of the circumstances referred to in subsection (2) rendered the person on whom the ‘penalty’ was imposed incapable of complying with the relevant obligation under the relevant tax Act. (2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are limited to— (a) a natural or human-made disaster; (b) a civil disturbance or disruption in services; (c) a serious illness or accident; (d) serious emotional or mental distress; (e) any of the following acts by SARS— (i) a capturing error; (ii) a processing delay; (iii) provision of incorrect information in an official publication or media release issued by the Commissioner; (iv) delay in providing information to any person; or (v) failure by SARS to provide sufficient time for an adequate response to a request for information by SARS; ( f ) serious financial hardship, such as— (i) in the case of an individual, lack of basic living requirements; or (ii) in the case of a business, an immediate danger that the continuity of business operations and the continued employment of its employees are jeopardised; or (g) any other circumstance of analogous seriousness.

APPEAL Lodge appeal within 30 days. Objection invalidated lodge new objection. Objection disallowed lodge an appeal. � Appeal will either go to ADR, or be referred to the Tax Board/ tax Court VERY IMPORTANT What happens if lodge Appeal and nothing happens? The case more often than not. � A. SARS MUST ISSUE A RULE 13(1) NOTICE 13. Notice of alternative dispute resolution. —(1) If the appellant has in a notice of appeal indicated a willingness to participate in alternative dispute resolution proceedings under this Part in an attempt to resolve the dispute, SARS must inform the appellant by notice within 30 days of receipt of the notice of appeal whether or not the matter is appropriate for alternative dispute resolution. � If SARS fail to provide you with an ADR notice? Rule 56 application for default judgement applies!

APPEAL � What happens after that? SARS MUST FINALISE ADR PROCEEDINGS WITHING 90 DAYS 15. Period of alternative dispute resolution. — (1) The period within which the alternative dispute resolution proceedings under this rule are conducted commences on the date of delivery of the notice by SARS under rule 13 (1)or the notice by the appellant under rule 13 (2) (b), and ends on the date the dispute is resolved under rule 23 or 24 or the proceedings are terminated under rule (2) The period referred to in subrule (1) interrupts the periods prescribed for purposes of proceedings under rule 12 and Parts D, E and F of these rules. (3) The parties must finalise the alternative dispute resolution proceedings within 90 days after the commencement date referred to in subrule (1). �

APPEAL Failure to finalize ADR in 90 days? Be careful. Cannot apply for Rule 56 default judgment. Duty on you take a step. Multitudes practitioners fail to take this step which would set them up for subsequent application for default judgment. � 25. Termination of proceedings. —(1) The alternative dispute resolution proceedings are terminated on the day after the expiry of the 90 day period (and when this happens your obligation under Rule 25(3) is imposed)……. . under rule 15, unless the parties agreed that this period may be extended. (2) Before expiry of the 90 day period under rule 15 or any extension thereof, if no agreement under rule 23 or settlement under rule 24 is concluded, the alternative dispute resolution proceedings are terminated on the date that— (a) the facilitator terminates the proceedings under rule 19; (b) the parties so agree; or (c) a party delivers a notice of termination to the other party. (3) If alternative dispute resolution proceedings are terminated under this rule, the appellant must within 20 days of the date of the termination— (a) if the appeal is to be dealt with by the tax board, request the clerk to set the matter down before the tax board under rule 26; or (b) if the appeal is to be dealt with by the tax court, give notice to SARS that the appellant wishes to proceed with the appeal. � TAXPAYER CAN ONLY APPLY FOR A RULE 56 DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AFTER A RULE 25(3) NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT! 26. Set down of appeal before tax board. —(1) The clerk must set an appeal down before the tax board within 30 days after receipt of— (a) a notice by the appellant under rule 11 (2) (a), 23 (4), 24 (4) or 25 (3); � If SARS fail to set it down before the board or court you may apply for default judgement rule 56 application

TAX BOARD AND TAX COURT � Statement of Grounds of Appeal and Rule 32 filing – refer to established administrative Justice Law principles, the Constitution and procedural arguments at length together with the substantive issues. � Both Tax Court and Board obliged to consider these issues, grounds, in limine points and constitutional elements � Rules Regulation around these proceedings, especially Tax court highly specialized � Monitor whole process in your substantive challenge and measure it against reasonableness, procedural fairness, lawfulness, principle of legality and PAJA.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION � Following is argument that should be considered in every challenge. � The developing constitutional principle of legality ensures that SARS must satisfy the jurisdictional facts of the empowering provisions of Sections 1 (definition of ‘relevant information’), 3(2), and 46 of the TAA, act lawfully, be reasonable, procedurally fair and give reasons – all connected to SARS’ constitutional obligations to be, inter alia, accountable, reasonableness, give reasons and be transparent when SARS carries out its duties � SARS must ensure that its conduct is not inconsistent with the Constitution as envisaged in section 2, and in doing so, must adhere to the norms, spirit and purpose of the Constitution, by fulfilling its constitutional obligations in terms of Sections 1(c), 33, 41(1), 195(1) and 237 of the Constitution where: � � the rule of law is supreme, only power conferred by the Constitution should be assumed; � and public administration must be governed by the democratic values and principles enshrined in the Constitution. This includes: � a high standard of professional ethics; � impartial, fair and unbiased conduct; � efficient, economic and effective use of resources; � public administration that must be accountable; � and transparent, providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information. � In terms of Section 4(2) of the SARS Act, SARS is specifically enjoined to perform its functions in the most cost-efficient and effective manner and in accordance with the values and principles in Section 195(1) of the Constitution. � Failure by SARS to adhere to these constitutional obligations will entitle taxpayers to approach the courts in terms of Sections 2 and 172(1) of the Constitution to declare the conduct of SARS invalid. � How does this apply to practice? Section 42 Judgement typical example � Other examples? Section 179. Section 164.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE EXAMPLE: SECTION 179(5) � Section 179(5) was recently introduced and SARS officials are very unaware of it. It has been the subject matter of many court applications that we have had to bring with SARS having to pay the costs, simply because they fail to follow due process prescribed under this section. (Briefly mention grounds for review and how this constitutes unlawfulness and procedural unfairness) � Current cases and challenges before court? � 179. Liability of third party appointed to satisfy tax debts. —(1) A senior SARS official may authorise the issue of a notice to a person who holds or owes or will hold or owe any money, including a pension, salary, wage or other remuneration, for or to a taxpayer, requiring the person to pay the money to SARS in satisfaction of the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debt. [Sub-s. (1) substituted by s. 66 of Act No. 39 of 2013 and by s. 57 (a) of Act No. 23 of 2015. ] Wording of Sections (2) A person that is unable to comply with a requirement of the notice, must advise the senior SARS official of the reasons for the inability to comply within the period specified in the notice and the official may withdraw or amend the notice as Is appropriate under the circumstances. (3) A person receiving the notice must pay the money in accordance with the notice and, if the person parts with the money contrary to the notice, the person is personally liable for the money. (4) SARS may, on request by a person affected by the notice, amend the notice to extend the period over which the amount must be paid to SARS, to allow the taxpayer to pay the basic living expenses of the taxpayer and his or her dependants. (5) SARS may only issue the notice referred to in subsection (1) after delivery to the tax debtor of a final demand for payment which must be delivered at the latest 10 business days before the issue of the notice, which demand must set out the recovery steps that SARS may take if the tax debt is not paid and the available debt relief mechanisms under this Act, including, in respect of recovery steps that may be taken under this section— (a) if the tax debtor is a natural person, that the tax debtor may within five business days of receiving the demand apply to SARS for a reduction of the amount to be paid to SARS under subsection (1), based on the basic living expenses of the tax debtor and his or her dependants; and (b) if the tax debtor is not a natural person, that the tax debtor may within five business days of receiving the demand apply to SARS for a reduction of the amount to be paid to SARS under subsection (1), based on serious financial hardship. [Sub-s. (5) added by s. 57 (b) of Act No. 23 of 2015. ] (6) SARS need not issue a final demand under subsection (5) if a senior SARS official is satisfied that to do so would prejudice the collection of the tax debt. [Sub-s. (6) added by s. 57 (b) of Act No. 23 of 2015. ]

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE EXAMPLE: Section 164(6) � Even though this section is not a new amendment to the TAA that has been introduced, it has become the newest development in tax controversy in that SARS simply fail to apply the same, which leads to either a court applications or intense tax disputes (6) During the period commencing on the day that— (a) SARS receives a request for suspension under subsection (2); or (b) a suspension is revoked under subsection (5), and ending 10 business days after notice of SARS’ decision or revocation has been issued to the taxpayer, no recovery proceedings may be taken unless SARS has a reasonable belief that there is a risk of dissipation of assets by the person concerned. � � Current challenges before Court?

THANK YOU � � PROF. DR. DANIEL N. ERASMUS Independent Tax Counsel International Tel: +1 568 7115 Africa Tel: +27 11 698 0329 � Email: daniel@taxriskmanagement. com � http: //www. africataxjournal. com/? p=643 � S PIETERSE � Tax Attorney � Tel: +27 41 581 1152 � Email: tax@strombeckpieterse. co. za �