This article explores a recent South African Tax Court ruling that underscores the importance of substantiating business expenses. It details how inflated costs and kickbacks can lead to severe penalties and highlights essential lessons for taxpayers and accountants alike.
Image: Ziphozonke Lushaba / Independent Newspapers
A recent South African Tax Court judgment sends a clear message to taxpayers: a deduction is not protected merely because it appears in an invoice, ledger or group-company agreement. Where Sarss can trace the commercial reality behind the paperwork, inflated costs, disguised payments and unsupported service fees may become the foundation for additional assessments, 200% understatement penalties, interest and punitive costs.
The case concerned Taxpayer LE (Pty) Ltd, a South African company within an international rail-equipment group. It was awarded three substantial locomotive supply contracts by Marshall SOC Ltd, including contracts for 95, 100 and 359 locomotives. Although Taxpayer LE contracted with Marshall, the locomotives were procured through related foreign group entities.
Sars investigated the taxpayer after significant funds linked to the group were blocked by the South African Reserve Bank. Through domestic information requests and international exchange-of-information processes, Sars examined the flow of funds between Taxpayer LE, related suppliers and offshore intermediary entities.
Sars concluded that Taxpayer LE had overstated its cost of sales by approximately R3.059 billion. Sars alleged that part of the contract value was channelled through offshore entities under so-called business development services agreements, in substance to fund improper payments or “kickbacks”. Sars also disallowed a R225 million interest deduction and various consultancy and management fees, on the basis that they were not properly incurred in the production of income or were not supported by credible evidence.
Taxpayer LE appealed, but ultimately closed its case without leading evidence and later refused to participate further in the proceedings. The Tax Court proceeded in its absence and determined the appeal on the evidence before it.
The judgment dealt with several important tax questions. Could Sars reopen assessments that were more than three years old? Were the claimed costs of sales, interest and consultancy fees deductible under the Income Tax Act? Could Sars rely on section 23(o), which prohibits deductions linked to corrupt activities? Were the additional assessments reasonable? And were the 200% understatement penalties justified?
A central procedural issue was also addressed: who had to begin in the Tax Court? The taxpayer argued that Sars had to begin because Sars relied on fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure to reopen prescribed years. The Court rejected this. The taxpayer, as appellant, bore the burden of proving that the assessments were wrong.
The Court confirmed that the tax appeal system starts from a practical premise: an assessment stands unless the taxpayer proves it wrong. Sars bears the burden on certain issues, such as the facts supporting an understatement penalty or the reasonableness of an estimate, but that does not reverse the taxpayer’s duty to prove that deductions were properly claimed.
On prescription, the Court accepted that Sars could reopen the earlier years. The original assessments had been issued on the basis of the taxpayer’s returns. Sars only later obtained information indicating misrepresentation or material non-disclosure. In those circumstances, the taxpayer could not rely on the ordinary three-year limitation period.
On the inflated cost-of-sales issue, the Court accepted Sars' tracing analysis. Sars did not rely only on broad allegations or fixed percentages. It reconciled contracts, schedules, invoices, business development agreements and bank records. The Court found that approximately 20% to 21% of certain contract values was channelled through intermediary entities and did not represent genuine operational expenditure.
On the R225 million interest deduction, the Court found serious contradictions. The taxpayer’s financial statements recorded the amount as interest on a related-party loan, yet the taxpayer had also denied the existence of related-party loans. Sars found no proper loan basis, no commercial justification and no adequate evidence that the amount had been incurred in the production of income.
The consultancy and management fees failed for similar reasons. The taxpayer could not prove what services had been rendered, how fees were calculated, or why the payments were commercially necessary. In some cases, VAT records did not support the claimed invoicing position.
The Tax Court confirmed Sars’ additional assessments under section 129(2)(a) of the Tax Administration Act.
It upheld the disallowance of the inflated cost-of-sales deductions, the R225 million interest deduction, and the disputed consultancy and management fees. It also confirmed the 200% understatement penalties on the basis of intentional tax evasion, as well as interest arising from the underpayment of provisional tax.
The taxpayer was ordered to pay Sars’ costs on a punitive scale, including the costs of two senior counsel, one junior counsel and the qualifying and preparation fees of Sars' expert witness.
The practical lesson is direct: Sars and the courts will test deductions against substance, not labels.
A taxpayer cannot defend a deduction merely by producing an invoice, a related-party agreement or a journal entry. The taxpayer must be able to prove the commercial purpose, the services or goods received, the calculation of the amount, the timing of incurral and the link to income-producing trade.
The judgment is also important for international groups. Sars successfully relied on information obtained through treaty-based exchange-of-information channels. Offshore bank accounts, foreign intermediaries and group-company documents are not beyond Sars' reach where they are foreseeably relevant to South African tax administration.
For tax directors, the judgment reinforces the need for defensible contract pricing, related-party documentation, transfer-pricing discipline, anti-bribery controls and board-level governance over large procurement structures.
For high-net-worth individuals and family investment structures, the message is that interposed entities and offshore arrangements must have demonstrable commercial substance. Control, beneficial ownership and cash flows matter.
For accountants, the case is a warning that financial statements, tax returns, VAT records and management explanations must align. Contradictions between ledgers, invoices, VAT declarations and taxpayer responses can become decisive evidence.
For general business owners, the case reduces to a simple point: if you claim an expense, you must be able to prove what you paid for, why it was necessary, when it was incurred and how it produced income.
Taxpayers should review high-value deductions, related-party charges, management fees, consulting arrangements, procurement commissions, offshore service agreements and unusual interest charges.
The review should not be limited to tax calculations. It should include contracts, board approvals, service deliverables, payment flows, VAT treatment, accounting entries, beneficial ownership records and anti-corruption risk.
Where Sars has already raised queries, taxpayers should avoid broad denials. A credible Sars response requires a document-by-document explanation, a transaction-by-transaction reconciliation and a clear commercial narrative supported by evidence.
This judgment is not only about corrupt payments. It is about the evidentiary burden of tax governance.
A taxpayer’s position is not built in court. It is built when the transaction is designed, approved, documented, accounted for and reported. Once Sars can show that the commercial reality differs from the tax return, the taxpayer needs more than an argument. It needs evidence.
* Oberholzer is the chief executive officer of Fyncor.
PERSONAL FINANCE