A client registered for VAT in 2015 and Revenue have queried his 2014 sales saying his turnover exceeded the VAT threshold.
SARS ignored the taxpayer’s request to not set off the amounts in the disputed assessment against refunds owed to the taxpayer.
SARS had ulterior motives in raising the additional assessment.
The taxpayer had a legitimate expectation that SARS would allow the interest deductions as it had always allowed the deductions in respect of the Nigerian interests.
The letter of findings was based on an error of law and lacked appreciation for the transfer pricing provisions in the Act.
A notice of assessment (form IT 34) was subsequently issued with due date and second date .
The taxpayer brought an application in terms of section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No 3 of 2000 (PAJA) for an order setting aside the assessment(s) and to refund monies withheld or having been set off by SARS.The court said that it could not in the present proceedings make such a determination as it required going into the facts and testing whether SARS’s explanation for manipulating the dates was far-fetched and untenable.On the issues regarding legitimate expectation, the court noted that, in principle, it could perhaps endorse the doctrine of legitimate expectation, but declined to do so, citing again that the Tax Court would be the appropriate forum to decide the matter.If the taxpayer were to be successful, the 2006 year of assessment will have prescribed and SARS would have been precluded from raising a further assessment.The taxpayer complained that: There was a procedural defect in the raising of the 2006 additional assessment.SARS was inconsistent in its practice by not indicating the second date as being 30 days after the due date.