Mr K v CSARS (24682)
Mr K, the taxpayer, appealed to the tax court, objecting to income tax assessments following an audit into his income tax affairs for the 2008 to 2013 tax years. The matter was set down from the 30th of November 2020 until the 4th of December 2020, but the Mr K failed to appear at court on the 30th of November 2020.
SARS requested default judgement, but as the matter had been set down for a number of days the judge stood the matter down. The taxpayer’s counsel and attorney withdrew from the matter, noting that they had not been paid and had been advised that they would not be paid. When the taxpayer eventually arrived at court, he also advised that he is not in a position to fund the services of the court approved interpreter.
The taxpayer alleged that he was not aware of the hearing. The judge noted that this seems improbable given that the matter has been on-going for 5 years and as the taxpayer had been well aware that pre-trial attendances were concluded on his instruction.
The judge requested SARS’ representative to address the court where after the taxpayer was invited to make representations under oath himself. The taxpayer however suggested that his wife and accountant give evidence on his behalf. At this stage the matter stood down for the appellant to consider what SARS’ representative had argued.
When the hearing proceeded, a discussion ensued relating to the costs of the interpreter, originally appointed by the taxpayer. The judge noted that the taxpayer “did not take the matter any further despite the fact that the interpreter had remained” and stated that this “was not acceptable to the court and further delayed proceedings”. The judge also highlighted in his judgement that the court was assisted by an accountant and a commercial member of the court which are highly regarded professionals whose time is a valuable resource. In addition to the latter, SARS’ counsel and the Registrar of the Tax Court travelled to Cape Town for the hearing, with all of these expenses being funded from taxpayers’ money. The judge notes that the taxpayer’s actions completely disregarded these expenditure and the time of the other parties involved.
The judge consequently dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to prosecute his appeal despite having been given the opportunity to do so and confirmed SARS’ decision to invalidate the taxpayer’s objections against the additional assessments. The judge also ordered the taxpayer to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the interpreter.
Find a copy of the court case here.
22/10/2021