# Tax Laws Amendment Bill

- Link: https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/tlab/
- Published: 2020-08-10T14:19:14+02:00
- Author: dearSA

[ Browse the DearSA website](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/pdps/)

### The National Treasury and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) published the 2020 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (2020 draft TLAB) and the 2020 draft Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill (2020 draft TALAB) for comment. The 2020 draft Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill (2020 draft Rates Bill) was also re-published for a second time for input.

_Please view a summary of proposed tax amendments and rates at the link below._

Hugely controversial is the proposed removal of the requirement on SARS to prove
intent from certain criminal offences with regard to disclosures made in respect
of income tax, VAT and Tax Administration ACT declarations. This means should you
make a mistake in your tax declarations, SARS can deem this as criminal intent.

### **13664**** **participants (closed 31 August)

[view a summary and info here ](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/tlab/summary)

[download a PDF of the public comments (5.8mb) ](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20190925/TLAB-TALAB-RATES-redact-s.pdf)

[view a report on the public participation ](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20190923/TLAB-TALAB-and-Tax-Rates-report-.pdf)

![tax-law-amendments-DearSA](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/
2020/08/20191000/tax-law-amendments-DearSA.jpg "tax-law-amendments-DearSA")

![Dear South Africa](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
02102235/DearSA-logo-s-100x31.jpg "DearSA-logo-s")

## Have your say – shape this policy.

**Error:** Contact form not found.

### DOWNLOAD DOCUMENTS

 * National Treasury [Media Statement](http://www.treasury.gov.za/comm_media/press/2020/20200731%20Media%20statement%20-%20Publication%20of%20the%202020%20Draft%20Tax%20Bills%20and%20accompanying%20documents%20for%20public%20comment.pdf)
 * [Explanatory Memorandum: Draft TLAB](http://www.treasury.gov.za/public%20comments/TLAB%20and%20TALAB%202020%20Draft/2020%20Draft%20%20Explanatory%20Memorandum%20on%20the%202020%20Draft%20TLAB%20-%2031%20July%202020.pdf)
 * [Explanatory Memorandum: Draft TALAB](http://www.treasury.gov.za/public%20comments/TLAB%20and%20TALAB%202020%20Draft/2020%20Draft%20%20Memo%20on%20Objects%20of%202020%20Draft%20TALAB%20-%2031%20July%202020.pdf)
 * [Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill](https://static.pmg.org.za/Draft_2020_Rates_and_Monetary_Amounts_and_Amendment_of_Revenue_Laws_Bill.pdf)
 * [Regulations on Electronic Services](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/20191001/LPrep-Draft-2020-47-2020-Draft-Regulations-Prescribing-Electronic-Service-31-July-2020.pdf)

### IN THE MEDIA

### 󠀁[Sars is seeking to criminalise mistakes](https://www.moneyweb.co.za/mymoney/moneyweb-tax/sars-is-seeking-to-criminalise-mistakes/)󠁿

_Moneyweb [Barbara Curson] _

In the preamble to the latest Tax Administration Bill, the South African Revenue
Service (Sars) indicates that it proposes to “remove the requirement of intent from
certain criminal offences”.

In what has become Sars’s attempt at a “tough stance” to scare taxpayers into compliance,
it has taken a blunt tool to remove a higher burden of proof that an action – or
an omission – had criminal intent.
 Sars has already decided that any action or 
omission was “wilfully done”, and is therefore criminal. So why should it waste 
time in trying to determine this?

It seems that in Sars’s book, taxpayers cannot make an honest error (naturally this
doesn’t apply to Sars’s own staff).

Bowmans partner Patricia Williams explains: “Sars wants to remove the requirement
that the relevant action must have been done ‘wilfully’. This removes the requirement
of criminal intent before the action is considered a crime.”

#### Burden of evidence

Sars has in the past attempted to “utilise the criminal offence provisions to extract
funds from people”. However, to be successful, Sars had to clear the ‘wilful intent’
hurdle. This was obviously placing too high a degree of skilfulness on Sars’s auditors;
after all, ‘wilful intent’ requires a heavier burden of evidence.

Says Williams: “Criminal intent already encompasses dolus eventualis – that is, 
foreseeing the reasonable possibility of an outcome and reconciling yourself to 
that. In the circumstances, gross negligence would already arguably meet the standard
of something ‘wilfully’ done. What Sars is seeking to do is to criminalise mistakes.”

Many frustrated taxpayers and tax practitioners complain that Sars treats them like
criminals. Well, here is the proof.
 Sars intends excising ‘wilful intent’ from:

 * Paragraph 30 (employees’ tax offences) of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax
   Act (TAA);
 * Section 58 (offences in regard to compliance) of the Value-Added Tax Act; and
 * Section 234 of the Tax Administration Act.

The amendment to Section 234 of the TAA now changes an error that can be made by
anyone into a criminal act, such as: the failure to notify Sars of a postal address,
a physical address, banking particulars used for transactions with Sars, an electronic
address used for communication with Sars, or such other details as the commissioner
may require by public notice.

It is also apparent that Sars expects all taxpayers to read their public notices,
even those without access to the internet or newspapers.

Further, Section 234 provides that Sars may register and allocate a taxpayer reference
number to a person who is not registered. Woe betide the person who doesn’t know
this, as not using this number in any communication with Sars will turn you into
a criminal.

In the Draft Memorandum on the objects of the Tax Administration Laws Amendment 
Bill, Sars reasons that using the term “wilfully” in respect of a statutory crime
is not correct, and that it is not possible to “wilfully” neglect something, and
that failing to do something required by the Act could be “problematic”.

#### Intent

Williams is of the view that: “This is patently wrong. One can purposefully fail
to submit one’s tax return, or purposefully fail to pay one’s taxes. This looks 
like Sars is misstating the position, in order to make the proposed [unfair] amendment
seem more reasonable.”

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is of the view “that the current wording
relating to criminal offences substantially undermines the ability of Sars to ensure
compliance based on the objective standard expected of the reasonable person”.

“Consequently,” it says, “this may hamper the criminal prosecution of non-compliant
taxpayers by the NPA in seeking to prove the elements of the crime.”

Williams is surprised: “Since when is it justifiable to remove certain elements 
of a crime in order to make it easier to prosecute?”

Is it possible that the NPA, which cannot point to a successful record in making
powerful criminals account for their crimes, realises that it is not competent to
pull off an ‘Al Capone’ tax arrest without removing ‘wilful intent’?

As for Sars, do its problems stem from the term ‘wilful intent’ scuppering its attempts
at prosecuting the big boys – or from its lack of skills, inefficiency, and having
been hollowed out by state capture?

### ENABLING YOU TO SHAPE GOVERNMENT POLICY

Dear South Africa is a legally recognised and constitutionally protected non-profit
platform which enables the public to co-shape all government policies, amendments
and proposals. We’ve run many successful campaigns and have amassed a considerably
large active participant network of over 750,000 individuals across the country 
and beyond.

**We do not run petitions.** We run legally recognised public participation processes
which allow citizens to co-form policy at all levels of governance. Whereas petitions,
even if they contain thousands of signatures, are considered as a single submission
by government, our process ensures that each comment made through dearsouthafrica.
co.za is recognised and counted as an individual submission by government.

Furthermore, we keep an accurate record of all participation and produce a publicly
available report at the end of each project. This report forms the foundation of
a sound legal case should the necessity to challenge the decision arise.

Participation costs you NOTHING, and is so easy and quick to do through the platform
that you really have no excuse not to help shape policy BEFORE it becomes law. Legally
challenging implemented law is costly and rarely successful. Prevention is better
than cure.

Participation in decision-making processes means a possibility for citizens, civil
society organisations and other interested parties to influence the development 
of policies and laws which affect them. We’ve made it easy for you as a responsible
citizen of South Africa, to influence government decisions before they are made.

![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/99vXt4ZEXWk/maxresdefault.jpg)

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel