A recent South African Tax Court decision sends a clear message to taxpayers: a deduction is not protected simply because it appears in an invoice, ledger account or group-company agreement. Where SARS can ascertain the business reality behind the paperwork, inflated costs, hidden payments and unsupported service charges can become the basis for additional assessments, 200% understatement penalties, interest and punitive costs.
The case concerns Taxpayer LE (Pty) Ltd, a South African company within an international rail-equipment group. It was awarded three significant locomotive supply contracts by Marshall SOC Limited, consisting of contracts for 95, 100 and 359 locomotives. Although the taxpayer LE had contracted with Marshall, the locomotives were purchased through related foreign group entities.
SARS investigated the taxpayer after the South African Reserve Bank blocked significant funds linked to the group. Through domestic information requests and international information exchange processes, SARS investigated the flow of funds between taxpayer LEs, related suppliers and offshore intermediaries.
SARS concluded that taxpayer LE had overstated its cost of sales by approximately R3.059 billion. SARS alleged that a portion of the contract value was channeled through offshore entities under so-called business development service agreements to finance improper payments or “kickbacks”. SARS also disallowed R225 million of interest deductions and various consulting and management fees on the grounds that they were not properly spent in the production of income or were not supported by credible evidence.
Taxpayer LE appealed, but ultimately closed its case without any major evidence and subsequently declined to participate further in the proceedings. The Tax Court proceeded in his absence and determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence before it.
The decision dealt with several important tax questions. Can SARS reopen assessments more than three years old? Whether the claimed cost of sales, interest and consultancy fees were deductible under the Income Tax Act? Can SARS rely on section 23(o), which prohibits deductions relating to corrupt activities? Were additional assessments appropriate? And was the 200% understatement penalty justified?
A central procedural issue was also addressed: who had the starting point in the Tax Court? The taxpayer argued that SARS had to start over because SARS had relied on fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure to reopen the prescribed years. The court rejected it. The burden was on the taxpayer as the appellant to prove that the assessments were incorrect.
The Court confirmed that the tax appeals system starts from a practical basis: an assessment stands unless the taxpayer disproves it. SARS bears the burden on certain issues, such as under-reported penalties or facts supporting the reasonableness of the estimate, but it does not reverse the taxpayer's duty to prove that the deduction was properly claimed.
On prescription, the Court accepted that SARS could reopen previous years. The original assessments were issued on the basis of the taxpayer's returns. SARS subsequently obtained information indicating misrepresentation or material non-disclosure. In those circumstances, the taxpayer could not rely on the normal three-year limitation period.
On the issue of increased cost of sales, the Court accepted SARS's tracing analysis. SARS did not rely solely on blanket allegations or fixed percentages. It matched contracts, schedules, invoices, business development agreements and bank records. The Court found that approximately 20% to 21% of some contract values were channeled through intermediary entities and did not represent actual operating expenses.
On the R225 million interest deduction, the Court found serious contradictions. The amount was recorded in the taxpayer's financial statements as interest on a related-party loan, yet the taxpayer denied even the existence of the related-party loan. SARS found no proper loan basis, no commercial justification and no sufficient evidence that the amount was spent in the generation of income.
Consulting and management fees failed for similar reasons. The taxpayer could not prove what services were provided, how the fees were calculated, or why the payments were commercially necessary. In some cases, VAT records do not support the claimed invoice status.
The Tax Court confirmed SARS's additional assessment under section 129(2)(a) of the Tax Administration Act.
It retained the increased cost of sales deduction, the R225 million interest deduction and the disallowance of controversial consulting and management fees. It also confirmed 200% under-reporting penalty on the grounds of willful tax evasion, along with interest arising from short payment of provisional tax.
The taxpayer was ordered to pay SARS's costs on a punitive scale, which included the costs of two senior lawyers, one junior lawyer and the qualification and preparation fees of SARS' expert witness.
The practical lesson is straightforward: SARS and the courts will test deductions based on substance, not label.
A taxpayer cannot defend the deduction merely by producing an invoice, related party agreement or journal entry. The taxpayer must be able to prove the commercial purpose, services or goods received, calculation of the amount, timing of expenditure and link to the income-producing business.
This decision is also important for international groups. SARS successfully relied on information obtained through treaty-based information exchange channels. Offshore bank accounts, foreign intermediaries and group-company documents are not beyond the reach of SARS where they are materially relevant to the South African tax administration.
For tax directors, the decision reinforces the need for defensive contract pricing, related-party documentation, transfer-pricing discipline, anti-bribery controls and board-level governance on large procurement structures.
For high net worth individuals and family investment structures, the message is that interconnected entities and offshore arrangements must have clear commercial content. Control, beneficial ownership and cash flow matter.
For accountants, this case is a reminder that financial statements, tax returns, VAT records and management explanations must be aligned. Contradictions between ledgers, invoices, VAT declarations and taxpayers' responses can become conclusive evidence.
For ordinary business owners, the matter boils down to one simple point: If you claim an expense, you must be able to prove what you paid, why it was necessary, when it was spent and how it generated income.
What should taxpayers do now
Taxpayers should review high-value deductions, related-party fees, management fees, consulting arrangements, purchase commissions, offshore service agreements and unusual interest charges.
The review should not be limited to tax calculations only. This should include contracts, board approvals, service delivery, payment flows, VAT treatment, accounting entries, beneficial ownership records and anti-corruption risks.
Where SARS has already raised questions, taxpayers should avoid blanket denials. A credible SARS response requires document-by-document explanation, transaction-by-transaction resolution, and a clear commercial narrative supported by evidence.
This decision is not just about corrupt payments. This is about the obvious burden of tax administration.
The position of the taxpayer does not arise in the court. It is created when a transaction is designed, approved, documented, accounted for and reported. Once SARS can show that commercial reality differs from the tax return, the taxpayer needs more than an argument. Proof is needed for this.
*Oberholzer is the Chief Executive Officer of Fincor.
personal Finance