In tax disputes, it is no longer sufficient to merely assert that an error was unintentional. Victory is achieved by providing evidence of what happened, why it happened, and whether the SARS law was applied correctly.
Shifting Focus in Tax Disputes
The most expensive part of a SARS assessment is not always the additional tax; often, it is the penalty. Many taxpayers are surprised by this, assuming that if the error was not intentional, the penalty should be waived. They might cite the accountant who prepared the return, a consultant, or claim that no one tried to mislead SARS—which sounds convincing in casual conversation but is insufficient in a dispute with SARS.
South Africa's penalties system for non-submission has shifted the battleground from intent to evidence. The simple dishonest behavior of the taxpayer is no longer the deciding factor. Now, it is necessary to establish whether there was a misunderstanding, whether SARS suffered damage, which category of behavior SARS selected, how the deficit was calculated, and whether the taxpayer can prove that the penalty is legally incorrect or factually excessive.
Causes and Calculation of Penalties
Misunderstanding is not limited to fraud. It can arise from an omission in the return, an incorrect declaration, failure to submit a return, or an improper avoidance scheme. SARS's guide on penalties for non-submission views damage to SARS or the treasury as the central trigger, after which the deficit is quantitatively determined by comparing the correct tax position with the position reflected or assumed before the misunderstanding was identified.
The percentage of the penalty is determined by the category of behavior. The legislative table distinguishes between material misunderstanding, lack of reasonable care when completing the return, lack of reasonable basis for the adopted tax position, improper avoidance schemes, gross negligence, and willful tax evasion. The more culpable the behavior, the harsher the penalty. The SARS guide describes this system as a progressive sanctions structure, providing for higher penalties for more serious conduct and mitigation for voluntary disclosure.
Legislative Changes
Taxpayers often misjudge risks by defending against accusations of evasion, whereas SARS may not need to prove evasion at all. A taxpayer might avoid a charge of willful misconduct but still face a penalty if SARS determines that reasonable care was not exercised, the tax position lacked a reasonable basis, or the misunderstanding was material.
The law has also changed such that vague explanations have become riskier. The Finance Act Amendment Act of 2026 introduced changes to Section 222 of the Tax Administration Act. The amended wording states that if a misunderstanding includes behavior listed in the penalties for non-submission table in Section 223, the taxpayer must pay the penalty for non-submission determined in accordance with Section 222(2). The previous wording, which excluded misunderstandings arising from honest unintentional errors, was removed from Section 222, and Section 223(3) was amended to directly regulate the cancellation of a penalty imposed for material misunderstanding if the misunderstanding results from an honest unintentional error.
Practical Documentation Requirements
In practice, this does not mean SARS is always right. It means that taxpayers must be much more disciplined in fighting assessments of penalties. The phrase 'honest unintentional error' remains important, but it is not a magic password. The Constitutional Court's ruling in the case of The Thistle Trust v Commissioner SARS placed this phrase directly into the landscape of tax disputes. SARS registers this case as relating to penalties for non-submission and honest unintentional error under the Tax Administration Act. The lesson for taxpayers is not that every honest mistake avoids a penalty. The lesson is that the nature of the error must be proven.
This proof usually needs to exist before the dispute begins. A taxpayer wishing to challenge a penalty for non-submission must be able to provide the return, working papers, tax calculation, source documents, consultations obtained before filing, the sequence of the verified process, and a chronology of what was communicated to SARS and when. If a company or trust is involved, the management file must also show who approved the tax position and whether the relevant directors or trustees understood the commercial arrangement that led to the tax accounting.
Importance of Procedural Approach
A short letter stating 'there was no intention to evade tax' will rarely be sufficient. SARS has the right to ask more complex questions: Who prepared the return? What information did this person have? Was the issue reviewed? Was there a tax opinion? Was full disclosure provided to SARS? Was the taxpayer's position objectively debatable at the time? Did the taxpayer ignore an obvious risk? Was the error isolated, recurring, systemic, or commercially advantageous?
These questions are not academic; they resolve financial matters. For business owners, a penalty dispute should be viewed as a matter of financial risk, not just compliance with tax legislation. A penalty for non-submission can distort cash flow, affect bank covenants, complicate financial reporting, influence audit opinions, and subject directors or trustees to awkward governance questions. With a large assessment, the penalty can also change the settlement strategy. A taxpayer who cannot provide proper documentation may find that the penalty becomes the starting point of the entire dispute.
Procedure also matters. Current SARS guidance on disputes in eFiling indicates that when challenging penalties, interest, assessments, or administrative fines, taxpayers can submit a request for cancellation, a notice of objection, a notice of appeal, a request for justification, a request for late submission, or a request for payment suspension. These steps are not interchangeable. A request for cancellation is not the same as an objection. A request for justification is not a payment suspension. Payment suspension itself does not win the essence of the dispute.
The sequence must be managed carefully. Taxpayers must first understand what SARS assessed, which category of behavior was applied, how the deficit was calculated, and whether SARS provided adequate grounds. Only then can the advisor decide whether the correct response is a request for cancellation, objection, appeal, settlement, analysis of voluntary disclosure, payment suspension, or a combination of these steps.
Political Aspects and Conclusion
There is also a broader political issue. SARS is under pressure to effectively collect revenue. Penalties are part of this enforcement architecture. They are intended to deter non-compliance, not just compensate the treasury for delayed payments. This is why penalty disputes are becoming more evidence-based and less lenient toward poor record-keeping.
However, the same system requires discipline from SARS. A penalty should not be imposed by formula or assumption. SARS must identify the misunderstanding, link it to statutory damage, apply the correct category of behavior, calculate the deficit correctly, and provide the taxpayer with a procedurally fair opportunity to challenge the decision. The taxpayer's mistake is assuming that fairness will be obvious. It will not be obvious if it is not documented. The new reality is harsh: in a penalty dispute, SARS memory is weak, intent is disputed, and retrospect is ignored. The case is won by evidence. Taxpayers who keep proper records, obtain pre-filing advice, disclose material facts, and document their rationale are in a much stronger position to challenge penalties. Those who reconstruct the file only after receiving an assessment are already at a disadvantage. The tax account may start with SARS, but the outcome often depends on the taxpayer's own documentation.
}, {
