CATEGORIES
- (27)Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development
- (24)Auditors & Accountants
- (6)Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment
- (5)Built Environment
- (55)Communications & Digital Technologies
- (2)Company Law
- (2)Consumer Law
- (10)Courts
- (2)Criminal Law
- (1)Cybercrimes
- (2)Disaster Management
- (11)Education & Training
- (4)Electoral Law
- (90)Environmental Law
- (4)Family Law
- (132)Financial Sector
- (3)Fisheries & Aquaculture
- (5)General Interest
- (18)Health & Safety
- (22)Home Affairs
- (3)Housing
- (14)In the Spotlight
- (1)International Co-operation
- (73)Justice & Constitutional Development
- (50)Labour Law
- (16)Legal Practice Council
- (18)Local Government
- (23)Minerals & Energy
- (1)Monetary Policy
- (1)National Development Plan
- (16)National Treasury
- (63)New Legislation
- (12)Opportunities for Public Comment
- (6)POPIA
- (276)Parliament
- (1)Practice Management
- (4)Presidency
- (13)Property Law
- (8)Public Service
- (3)Retirement Reform
- (13)Road Accident Fund
- (21)Safety and Security
- (7)Small Business Development
- (21)Social Development
- (9)Sport, Arts & Culture
- (14)State Owned Enterprises
- (4)State of Disaster (energy)
- (18)Taxation
- (7)Tourism
- (61)Trade, Industry & Competition
- (34)Transport
- (15)Water & Sanitation
- Show All
Taxpayers beware – record keeping is fundamentally important
- 07 July 2022
- New Legislation
- SA Legal Academy
In the recent Tax Court judgment of Taxpayer Z v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (Case No. 35448) (16 March 2022), the court had to determine the consequences arising from the questionable actions of the “controlling mind” of the taxpayer – both in respect of the tax position they adopted and the manner in which they engaged with the South African Revenue Service (SARS).
Owned by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Attorneys
0 COMMENTS
There are not comments for this article at the moment, check back later.
LEAVE A COMMENT
You must be logged in to add a comment, log in now.