Many taxpayers continue to use the services of unofficial or unverified 'tax consultants' for filing returns and resolving issues with SARS. This choice can expose you to risks of fraud, improper use of personal data, missed refunds, and long-term damage to tax compliance. In the worst-case scenarios, the liability remains with the taxpayer, while the consultant disappears and cannot be held accountable.
SARS clarifies that according to Section 240(1) of the Tax Administration Act, any natural person providing tax advice for remuneration or assisting in filling out a return for another person is required to register with SARS as a tax consultant and be registered with (or under the jurisdiction of) a Recognized Controlling Body (RCB) within 21 working days after the first provision of advice or assistance in completing the return.
SARS also notes that the dual registration system maintains minimum standards for admission and maintenance of tax consultant status. These standards include requirements for minimum qualification and experience, criminal record checks, expectations of Continuing Professional Education (CPE), and tax compliance checks. According to SARS external guidance GEN-GEN-59-G01, effective from April 20, 2026.
SAIT strongly recommends that all tax consultants monitor SARS requirements and carefully study the latest SARS external guidance to timely understand and meet compliance requirements, including any verification steps.
It is important to understand that a registered tax consultant does not possess magical powers; they cannot make SARS ignore the law or create outcomes that are not supported by facts and law. Their primary function is to assist taxpayers in complying with requirements by applying specialized knowledge to interpret rules, prepare accurate submissions, and guide clients through SARS processes in a lawful and defensible manner.
Registration also establishes regulated professional relationships: the consultant is responsible according to professional rules, continuing education expectations, and disciplinary oversight through their Recognized Controlling Body (RCB), which provides a clearer path for accountability and recourse in case of problems.
There is a practical market issue: some taxpayers pressure consultants to 'achieve the impossible,' such as approving aggressive tax positions clearly incompatible with the law, or artificial positions based on exploiting perceived loopholes or ambiguities in the law and process. Such a situation can put even diligent consultants in a difficult position, as a conflict arises between commercial pressure and the professional duty to act competently and objectively within the law.
A serious concern is also the shameless proliferation of social media pages where self-proclaimed 'tax consultants'—registered, unregistered, or completely unknown—openly advertise 'loopholes' in SARS and other demonstrably illegal schemes. This is not 'tax consultation'; it is a direct invitation to unlawful actions disguised as a service offering, putting ordinary taxpayers at risk when SARS discovers violations.
The public message must be unequivocal: legitimate 'loopholes' or shortcuts in strategy or compliance process, especially in tax, do not exist. Anyone selling shortcuts, 'special access,' or guaranteed results is, by definition, a red flag, and taxpayers must immediately withdraw: verify the consultant's registration and status with the controlling body, refuse to provide confidential access information, and do not allow anyone to change your contact details with SARS.
Mapitso Mamabolo, an SAIT compliance officer, emphasizes: 'This is where checking ceases to be optional and becomes basic self-protection.'
This is why registered consultants play a vital public role that goes beyond mere 'filing documents': they also educate and stabilize their clients. They help taxpayers understand complex legal requirements, the limits of what is permissible, and the real risks of non-compliance. Simply put, good consultants do not just file returns; they promote responsible tax behaviour by translating complex rules into practical advice, setting realistic expectations, and guiding clients away from illegal or unsustainable approaches. This educational function is one of the most important protections the public receives when using a properly registered specialist within the regulatory system.
'Ghost tax consultants' can operate covertly, leaving taxpayers unprotected. Risks include false claims, unjustified expenses, fee extraction based on refunds, and misuse of personal information. Engaging an unregistered 'tax consultant' is not a harmless workaround; it can eliminate the very safeguards designed to protect taxpayers. South Africa's approach to tax administration does not provide taxpayers with a 'safe haven' simply because they relied on someone else; the obligation to ensure the accuracy and reliability of returns remains with the taxpayer.
When the assisting specialist is unregulated, the risk profile changes sharply: the consultation may prove ineffective, personal information may be exploited, and the taxpayer may have limited practical recourse for appeal, as no recognized controlling body has records or jurisdiction for swift and decisive intervention. In short, the more 'informal' the service, the higher the probability that the taxpayer will bear the consequences alone.
The legal and regulatory framework is designed to prevent exactly this outcome. The latest SARS guidance explains that the system relies on dual registration: a natural person providing tax advice for remuneration or filling out/assisting in filling out a return for another person must register with SARS as a tax consultant and be affiliated with (or under the regulation of) a Recognized Controlling Body (RCB) within the stipulated timeframes. Current SARS criteria reflect that registration is maintained by minimum admission and retention standards, including qualification/experience thresholds, independently verified criminal record checks, CPE expectations, and tax compliance requirements.
The simple practical takeaway for readers is this: registration is not just a 'badge'; it is a gateway to a structure of minimum screening, continuous monitoring, and accountability pathways that taxpayers lose when dealing with anyone operating outside the framework.
Finally, SARS is actively strengthening its verification approach during registration. The latest SARS guidance explains that registrations are processed through an electronic workflow with automated compliance checks and risk screening, and if the screening indicates the need for verification, SARS may place the application on hold for verification and request supporting documents within specified timeframes (the guidance describes up to 21 working days for supporting documents and up to 5 working days for additional documents during verification, failure of which may lead to application rejection).
A multi-layered approach is necessary. For a basic check, you do not need to be a tax expert. First, ask your tax consultant to provide their SARS consultant number (it should start with 'PR-...') and confirm identity details if possible. Alternatively, you can ask your tax consultant to share their practice license, which will contain all necessary information or allow verification through SARS or the Recognized Controlling Body (RCB). Also, ask which RCB the consultant belongs to and confirm membership in that RCB. If the consultant claims membership in SAIT, verify this on SAIT's compliance channels.
Even when working with a legitimate consultant, basic steps should be taken to protect your SARS profile and personal information. Never allow your email address and phone number to be replaced by the consultant's data in SARS systems. A registered and legitimate tax consultant will never request personal data. Be wary of those who guarantee refunds or tie their fees to the amount of your refund. Contingency commission fee agreements are not considered a suitable or permitted payment/remuneration scheme for tax consultants in South Africa. If your tax consultant operates according to ethical and professional standards, they will not offer a contingency commission billing scheme. A SAIT consultant knows that this constitutes unethical billing practice, as it is considered creating a perverse incentive to the detriment of the unsuspecting taxpayer.
Request a written scope of work and keep records of instructions and submissions. A diligent tax consultant always begins collaboration by drafting a formal and detailed agreement letter. This is where opinions converge and expectations are laid out. The agreement letter is critical for client management/interaction. It is also often the primary document protecting both tax consultants and taxpayers.
Ensure you personally review key returns before submission; the responsibility for accuracy lies with the taxpayer. A registered tax consultant will always ensure their client understands the process, as well as mutual obligations/responsibilities to the extent that both parties are responsible for the taxpayer's tax affairs.
As an RCB, SAIT is part of a structure that supports professionalism and public trust in the tax consulting industry. Chapter 18 of the Tax Administration Act regulates professionalism in the industry, and tax consultants play an instrumental role in compliance. Simply put, when the tax consulting ecosystem is healthy, society is safer, and the tax system functions better. SARS guidance also recognizes that the withdrawal of registration and non-compliance by tax consultants have real indirect consequences: they affect livelihoods, business continuity, and the taxpayers served by these consultants. This is why RCB oversight matters; it helps promote early compliance, consistent standards, and timely correction of issues before they escalate into disputes, deregistration, or public harm.
In practice, RCBs are not 'bystanders' in this system. RCBs are responsible for maintaining the data and registration status of their member consultants and managing members, including initiating registrations, maintaining relationship statuses, monitoring notifications, and ensuring tax consultant compliance, among other things, which is an integral part of the RCB mandate. This capability supports proactive management: it allows RCBs to identify emerging issues and engage with members.
Millions of South Africans have received notifications regarding the automated assessment of their tax returns. An expert emphasizes that understanding the implications of this new system is key to its effective use.
In July, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) notified millions of citizens that their tax returns had been prepared automatically. For many, this has been a relief compared to the long wait times, queues, and complex paperwork associated with filing taxes. However, many are questioning whether they can trust an assessment they did not prepare themselves.
SARS officially began sending out automated assessment notifications from July 1st to July 12th. As of July 2nd, automatic determinations had been made for nearly 1.9 million taxpayers, resulting in the issuance of estimated 8 billion early payments. This new mechanism applies not only to employees but also to temporary taxpayers who meet specific criteria, marking a significant change in South Africa's tax system, according to Jenny Wilson-Jenkins, an employee of Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys.
Explaining the essence, Wilson-Jenkins notes that the automated assessment is a SARS initiative to compile an income tax return based on data collected from various third-party institutions. These institutions include employers, banks, medical scheme administrators, pension funds, and other approved data providers. Once SARS confirms the completeness and reliability of the received information, it prepares an assessment for the taxpayer, eliminating the need for manual form completion via eFiling.
It is important to understand that receiving an automated assessment does not relieve the taxpayer of their tax obligations and is not based on assumptions. Instead, it is a thorough data matching procedure where SARS forms the tax position based on reports from these third parties. Auto-assessment is only applicable to certain categories of taxpayers; if the data in eFiling is incomplete or if income is not documented by a third-party institution (such as freelance or rental income), the automated assessment will not be applied.
Those who did not receive a notification before July 12th are required to file their tax returns manually: non-resident taxpayers must do so between July 13th and October 23rd, while temporary taxpayers and trusts have until January 22, 2027.
A critical question arises: should one simply accept the automated assessment or take time to study it in detail? According to Wilson-Jenkins, the answer depends on the taxpayer's level of confidence in the completeness of the data held by SARS.
If the sole income for the year came from salary, and there are no additional deductions beyond those reflected, one might consider accepting the automated assessment as correct. Nevertheless, agreement with the assessment does not absolve liability. The ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the tax return lies with the taxpayer under the Tax Administration Act. Failure to check or correct errors in the automated assessment can lead to future penalties and interest.
To ensure due diligence, it is recommended that every recipient of an automated assessment log into the SARS eFiling system or use the MobiApp to review the assessment itself and the underlying data before making a decision.
When conducting a review, several points should be noted. It is necessary to check for any unaccounted income, such as freelance earnings or rental income, which SARS may have missed, and in such a case, it should be declared manually.
Attention should also be paid to potentially unrecorded deductions, such as contributions to pension annuities or additional medical expenses. It is crucial to verify the accuracy of data regarding medical scheme contributions and dependent information, as this directly affects the medical tax credit. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure the correctness of bank details for timely refunds, especially if the account has recently changed.
If the amount payable or refundable seems unexpected—whether abnormally high or low—it is extremely important to investigate the details further. Caution should also be exercised regarding fraud, as scammers often exploit the automated assessment period. It should be remembered that SARS will never request confidential information through unsolicited messages.
Although the automated assessment system provides significant convenience and promises quick refunds to many South African taxpayers, Wilson-Jenkins emphasizes that it does not replace the need for careful verification and due diligence. The shift to digital convenience should not become a reason to neglect one's obligations. Taking a few minutes to cross-reference figures with personal records can prevent future problems. The choice remains with the taxpayer, and with them, the responsibility for their tax affairs.
Six million taxpayers in South Africa benefit from the convenience of automated assessment during tax season, but Sanjit Hannuman raises concerns about whether they are exposing themselves to the risk of costly errors.
During the first two weeks of the current tax period, SARS automatically assessed 1.9 million taxpayers, issuing approximately 8 billion early payments. These funds often reach bank accounts within 72 hours, eliminating queues, form filling, and stress for millions of employees for whom tax season concluded with a single SMS.
Automated assessment is a process where SARS independently generates a tax return using data received from employers, medical insurers, pension funds, and the taxpayer's bank. If a taxpayer was selected for such an assessment, they received a notification via SMS or email between July 1 and 12 regarding whether they were due a refund or owed SARS money. Provided the data is correct, no further action is required from them, and the refund is processed automatically.
The new Commissioner, Dr. Johnston Makubu, announced several improvements beneficial to taxpayers. The deadline to appeal or amend an automated assessment has been extended to October 23, 2026, aligning with the general filing deadline, provided the assessment was issued before August 27. Previously, taxpayers had a much tighter window for such actions.
Furthermore, for the first time, automated assessment has been expanded to certain temporary categories of taxpayers with more complex financial operations, such as rental or investment income, following a trial period that began in 2025. The addition of a simplified declaration, a dropdown list of medical schemes to reduce errors, and the ability to view the Assessment Notice and upload documents via WhatsApp indicates modernization by the tax authority.
Despite the convenience, there is a significant drawback: automated assessment relies solely on information provided by third parties to SARS, and SARS does not have a complete picture of an individual's financial situation. Last year, 99.6% of taxpayers who underwent automated assessment accepted it without changes, which, according to the author, is more a sign of blind faith than accuracy.
South Africans tend to assume that receiving a figure from SARS means it is flawless, yet the legal responsibility for the correctness of the assessment lies with the taxpayer, not with SARS, the employer, or the medical insurer. SARS does not see medical expenses paid from personal funds, nor does it account for a home office under a qualified work arrangement, donations to registered charities, accounts to confirm travel expenses, or contributions to pension annuities made directly, rather than through a payslip.
Tax Director at Hobbs Sinclair, Daniel Luwes, warned that the absence of these deductions could lead taxpayers to overpay taxes or lose legitimate reimbursements. Of particular danger is the carry-over of pension annuity contributions exceeding the annual limit from the previous year; if this carried-over amount is incorrectly linked to the current assessment, the deduction will simply disappear without any warning.
More alarming are instances where a Durban chartered accountant discovered six errors in automated assessments during the first week of the season, including unrecorded medical contributions and pension annuities. There were also reports of cases where taxpayers who voluntarily paid provisional tax received a full refund of their payment, even though they still owed money. Additionally, issues arose with tax fund directives, causing lump-sum payments from pension funds to be erroneously shown as taxable in automated assessments, creating false tax debts for pensioners.
If a taxpayer accepts an automated assessment that omits income—such as rent from a grandmother's apartment or freelance income—they are making a false declaration. In the event of a subsequent audit by SARS, whose data matching capabilities are constantly growing, they may face penalties up to 200% of the tax amount plus interest. A refund received within 72 hours can turn into a very expensive debt.
In conclusion, the author advises against rejecting the technology but rather verifying it: log into eFiling or MobiApp and cross-check every figure against IRP5 certificates, medical insurance, and pension fund statements. You must ask yourself two questions: is there income that SARS does not see, and are there deductions that SARS is unaware of? If the answer is yes, you should submit a corrected return by October 23, 2026. If no automated assessment was performed at all, the submission must be done independently, as the filing window opened on July 13. For complex financial situations, consulting a professional is recommended, as the cost of consultation is almost always lower than the cost of an error.
