This is not a paywall.

Register for free to continue reading.

We made a promise to you that we’ll never erect a paywall and we intend to keep that promise. We also want to continually improve your reading experience and you can help us do that by registering with us. It’s quick, easy and will cost you nothing.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish up registering with us:

Please enter your password or get a login link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for registering.

Five points to consider when the SA Revenue Service owe...

Business Maverick


Five points to consider when the SA Revenue Service owes you a refund

(Photo: Waldo Swiegers / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

It’s been a tough year. For taxpayers expecting long-outstanding refunds from the South African Revenue Service, even more so.

Earlier in 2020, SARS relished the fact that it had paid R2.4-billion in refunds to taxpayers, saying it was “a major cash injection into the economy at a very critical period”. But the revenue service has generally been slow to refund excess payments. The Tax Ombud, for instance, reported that in the 2018/19 financial year, 24.43% of all complaints received by its office related to delayed refunds – the second-highest number of complaints.

The serious delays often experienced by taxpayers have been the subject of a systemic investigation by the ombud, but it seems this frustrating practice will persist as long as pressure on the fiscus prevails. Fortunately, taxpayers are not without legal recourse. 

In this ENSight, we look at five important considerations to take into account when SARS owes a refund.  

SARS ‘must’ pay a refund when a taxpayer is entitled to it

Section 190(1) of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (TAA) determines that SARS “must” pay a refund, together with interest on that amount, to any taxpayer who is entitled to it. This provision extends to refunds of inter alia income tax, value-added tax (VAT), mineral royalties or pay-as-you-earn.

Enforcing this right, as a first step, would typically require the taxpayer to request a refund from SARS in respect of the amounts that are due.            

That being said, the right afforded to taxpayers is subject to further provisions of Section 190.

SARS has the right to conduct an audit before paying a refund

Section 190(2) contains a potential hurdle for taxpayers waiting for a refund. It says SARS is not required to pay a refund until a “verification, inspection or audit” in respect of that refund has been finalised in terms of Chapter 5 of the TAA. In other words, the subsection preserves SARS’s right to launch and finalise an audit of the refund (as opposed to, for example, a general VAT or mineral royalty audit) before paying a cent to the taxpayer. So, arguably, SARS cannot use the defence that it is busy with a general tax audit and therefore refuse to make the refund. However, each case must be considered on the relevant facts at hand.

The recent matter of Rappa Resources (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS illustrates the potential headaches of this section. In this matter, Rappa alleged it was owed a substantial amount of refunds. On the other hand, SARS argued that the amounts were still under audit and that no refunds could be paid. But, by the time of the judgment, the audit in respect of the March 2020 VAT return had not yet been completed. The high court cautioned that “SARS cannot be allowed an indefinite time to complete an audit” and, accordingly, the court directed SARS to conclude the audits by no later than 11 December 2020.

The takeaway is that a taxpayer who is subjected to a protracted audit may approach the court, in principle, for an order (a so-called mandamus) directing SARS to conclude its audit by a certain date. The court will, of course, consider various factors before granting such an order.

SARS ‘must’ pay a refund if the taxpayer tenders security

Section 190(3) provides that SARS “must” pay a refund – even before the finalisation of an audit – if the taxpayer has tendered security “in a form acceptable to a senior SARS official”. In the Rappa case the court confirmed that a taxpayer is not required to tender security for the whole amount of the refund. If the taxpayer, for instance, provides security for 50% of the refund, then SARS must concomitantly pay 50% of that refund.

A refund can prescribe

It’s important to keep in mind that Section 190(4) contains prescription provisions. It provides that a refund that stems from an erroneous overpayment of taxes will be forfeited to the state, unless a refund is made:

  • In the case of an assessment by SARS (such as income tax), within three years of certain dates; and
  • In the case of a self-assessment (such as VAT and mineral royalties), within five years from certain dates.

Accordingly, taxpayers who are owed refunds should ensure they enforce their rights without delay. Crucially, a refund that has prescribed will not be recoverable from SARS.

Outstanding taxes (and returns) could affect the payment of refunds

Taxpayers must note that, in terms of Section 191 of the TAA, SARS may allocate a refund against certain other outstanding taxes. For instance, it may set off a VAT refund against outstanding income tax. Very often, the result of this provision is that SARS will not pay any amount of a refund if there are outstanding returns recorded on the taxpayer’s account.

Taxpayers should engage with SARS in respect of any refunds due. However, if they are left in the dark or subjected to bureaucratic stonewalling, taxpayers will not be without recourse; a taxpayer who is aggrieved by SARS’s inaction may, in principle, approach the high court to compel SARS to pay the refunds. The court will consider all of the provisions above and the applicable factual matrix.

Whatever the course of action, taxpayers should seek professional tax advice on the available remedies, the use and timing of such remedies, and most importantly, the overall strategy, so as not to be tripped up by administrative or procedural issues. DM

Andries Myburgh is a tax executive and Simon Weber a tax associate at ENSafrica.co.


Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 2

  • Something else to consider : check which bank account is linked! It is very easy to add bank accounts from which funds can flow INTO the Receiver. The other bank accounts do not even need to belong to the Company. However, if you had an account at Bank A and later added an account from Bank B and merrily all worked when paying, if that old account at A has now been closed, SARS will still try to pay to the old account. You have to go through the mission of deleting the old bank account. If, like many, the “authorised representative” is long since no longer working at your Company, you have to change that also as SARS will only work with that person to delete the old bank account from their side.

    Note also that with Flash dying, it is not going to be easy making changes as there seems to be a different Flash deployment and system on the parts for changing organizational details than the one still working for the main returns.

    If you can, file your 2020 now, before the mess that is likely to happen in January 2021. It is not clear that EFiling will work after Flash dies.

  • Some years ago SARS took from my bank account more than was due; no argument that they took too much.
    After endless objections I just gave up!
    My advisor told me they were a law unto themselves.

  • Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted