Bikini model says SARS ruined her life

[Vrotappel]

SARS WINS 10-YEAR BATTLE AGAINST NON-COMPLIANT TAXPAYER

The SARS investigation originated from a Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) report regarding a suspicious transaction, involving the amount of approximately $15-million (R142-million).

 

[Swa]

Rich daddy not declaring all his income hidden money away and concocted the whole story to explain where the money came from.

Except Sars could show no such thing and their own trail lead to the shiek.

 

[ForceFate]

Except Sars could show no such thing and their own trail lead to the shiek.

That's the part I don't understand.

 

[Swa]

That's the part I don't understand.

Yeah these are all allegations which Sars could not reasonably show. Their claim of "victory" is nothing more than a sideshow over the property because it seems the Van Der Merwes dropped the case against them. As usual the guy with the big pockets wins in legal battles.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

SARS WINS 10-YEAR BATTLE AGAINST NON-COMPLIANT TAXPAYER

Many years to go with mbeki, zuma, ramaposa and mandela?

 

[Vrotappel]

Yeah these are all allegations which Sars could not reasonably show. Their claim of "victory" is nothing more than a sideshow over the property because it seems the Van Der Merwes dropped the case against them. As usual the guy with the big pockets wins in legal battles.

Why not read the court judgment my learned friend?

Candice-Jean vd Merwe - SCA 20152-2014 [2015] ZASCA 86 - 28 May 2015

Despite relatively modest earnings from her modelling career (she declared
taxable income of R20 023, R20 912, R24 995 and R45 336 for the 2009 to 2012 tax
years) lady luck, it would seem, suddenly smiled on the applicant during 2013.
According to SARS, it had been made aware by the Financial Intelligence Centre that
the Standard Bank of South Africa had received USD 15,3 million for her benefit on 16
May 2013. The remitter of those funds, which had been transferred from the Bank Med
Sal in Lebanon, was identified as Muhamad Muhamad Nazih Rawwas. Moreover, she

acquired two motor vehicles during May and June of that year, namely an Audi R8
Spyder and a Range Rover Evoque collectively valued in excess of R 2, 5 million.
SARS asserted that: (a) the applicant was simply a conduit and had received the funds
in question on behalf of and for the benefit of her father; and (b) the income declared by
her could not sustain the acquisition of those vehicles.

It makes for some juicy reading.

SARS eventually took R44 million from her.

 

[R13...]

Many years to go with mbeki, zuma, ramaposa and mandela?

I know Zuma has tax issues but wasn't aware of the others in your list. Do tell.

 

[Swa]

Why not read the court judgment my learned friend?

Candice-Jean vd Merwe - SCA 20152-2014 [2015] ZASCA 86 - 28 May 2015



It makes for some juicy reading.

SARS eventually took R44 million from her.

Asserting being the operative word. They had no evidence to actually show it. And it seems a bit far fetched as well.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

I know Zuma has tax issues but wasn't aware of the others in your list. Do tell.

Self-explanatory: Anc Leaders

 

[Vrotappel]

Asserting being the operative word. They had no evidence to actually show it. And it seems a bit far fetched as well.

When it comes to tax law the onus is on you the taxpayer to proof that for example this 'donation' is not actually income.

Now SARS has liquidated this guy's assets. Took a chunk of his daughter's 'gift'. Do you think the taxpayer could discharge that onus that was placed on him in this case?

 

[Snyper564]

When it comes to tax law the onus is on you the taxpayer to proof that for example this 'donation' is not actually income.

Now SARS has liquidated this guy's assets. Took a chunk of his daughter's 'gift'. Do you think the taxpayer could discharge that onus that was placed on him in this case?

hey dont miss this, you cant get away from tax even if it is a donation

cant just give your child a house or car and think there are no tax consequences, donations tax exists to catch tax that is not in a persons estate when they die which is also at 20%

Who is liable for donations tax (20%)?

The person making the donation (donor) is liable for to pay the donations tax, however if the donor fails to pay the tax within the payment period the donor and donee are jointly and severally liable (section 59).

The Commissioner may at any time raise an assessment on the donor or donee (or both) for the donations tax. Including where the Commissioner is satisfied that the full amount of donation tax was not paid, raise an assessment for the difference. The payment by either the donor or donee will discharge this joint liability (section 60(5)).

 

[HelterSkelter]

Guava-ATM

 

[Swa]

When it comes to tax law the onus is on you the taxpayer to proof that for example this 'donation' is not actually income.

Now SARS has liquidated this guy's assets. Took a chunk of his daughter's 'gift'. Do you think the taxpayer could discharge that onus that was placed on him in this case?

It's not so simple. Proof is the financial trail which is not in Sars' favour. Sars alleges differently so the onus falls on them to prove different events than the official ones. Otherwise Sars could allege anything about any transaction and place an unmeetable onus on taxpayers.

hey dont miss this, you cant get away from tax even if it is a donation

cant just give your child a house or car and think there are no tax consequences, donations tax exists to catch tax that is not in a persons estate when they die which is also at 20%

Who is liable for donations tax (20%)?

The person making the donation (donor) is liable for to pay the donations tax, however if the donor fails to pay the tax within the payment period the donor and donee are jointly and severally liable (section 59).

The Commissioner may at any time raise an assessment on the donor or donee (or both) for the donations tax. Including where the Commissioner is satisfied that the full amount of donation tax was not paid, raise an assessment for the difference. The payment by either the donor or donee will discharge this joint liability (section 60(5)).

That falls away in the case of foreign nationals as foreigners do not have SA tax obligations.

 

[Speedster]

hey dont miss this, you cant get away from tax even if it is a donation

cant just give your child a house or car and think there are no tax consequences, donations tax exists to catch tax that is not in a persons estate when they die which is also at 20%

Who is liable for donations tax (20%)?

The person making the donation (donor) is liable for to pay the donations tax, however if the donor fails to pay the tax within the payment period the donor and donee are jointly and severally liable (section 59).

The Commissioner may at any time raise an assessment on the donor or donee (or both) for the donations tax. Including where the Commissioner is satisfied that the full amount of donation tax was not paid, raise an assessment for the difference. The payment by either the donor or donee will discharge this joint liability (section 60(5)).

Donations from foreigners are tax free.

 

[Vrotappel]

It's not so simple. Proof is the financial trail which is not in Sars' favour. Sars alleges differently so the onus falls on them to prove different events than the official ones. Otherwise Sars could allege anything about any transaction and place an unmeetable onus on taxpayers.


That falls away in the case of foreign nationals as foreigners do not have SA tax obligations.

Obviously the taxpayer could not proof this 'gift' hence the liquidation of his assets.

You need to do some brushing up on tax law if you want to discuss it.

This is old but still relevant. The statute is now contained in the TAA* but still applicable:

General - 911. The onus on the taxpayer June 2001

Section 82 of the Income Tax Act places upon the taxpayer the onus of showing that "any amount is exempt from or not liable to any tax chargeable under this Act or is subject to any deduction, abatement or set-off in terms of this Act and upon the hearing of any appeal from any decision of the Commissioner, the decision shall not be reversed or altered unless it is shown by the appellant that the decision is wrong".

Herein lies a salutary lesson for taxpayers of the extent of the onus on them in a tax case. Tax law is based on statute and not common law. Compliance with procedures and burden of proof is therefore particularly important.

*Tax Administration Act

 

[Swa]

Obviously the taxpayer could not proof this 'gift' hence the liquidation of his assets.

You need to do some brushing up on tax law if you want to discuss it.

This is old but still relevant. The statute is now contained in the TAA* but still applicable:

General - 911. The onus on the taxpayer June 2001





*Tax Administration Act

If the taxpayer can't prove it it's not a reasonable burden and thus not applicable. Also what you quoted says "show" and not prove. The "proof" you are suggesting in this thread means something different than what you think it does.

In this case the transaction showed it to be a non-taxable event. The issue is that Sars already got their hands on their money and they couldn't go through with the case. Don't misconstrue this as a "win" for Sars. The courts were also biased against the Van Der Merwes in not allowing them access to important documents. If it was someone with deep pockets like the Ruperts Sars would have seen their asses in higher courts.

 

[Vrotappel]

If the taxpayer can't prove it it's not a reasonable burden and thus not applicable. Also what you quoted says "show" and not prove. The "proof" you are suggesting in this thread means something different than what you think it does.

In this case the transaction showed it to be a non-taxable event. The issue is that Sars already got their hands on their money and they couldn't go through with the case. Don't misconstrue this as a "win" for Sars. The courts were also biased against the Van Der Merwes in not allowing them access to important documents. If it was someone with deep pockets like the Ruperts Sars would have seen their asses in higher courts.

LOL did you even read the court case?

This guy is swimming in money.

It seems posting links and court cases for you to read is a waste of my time as your mind was made up before the time and you don't have the ability or inclination to possibly consider a different version from the ones you made up.

With regards to 'reasonable burden' - you have no idea what you are talking about. Go study some tax law then come back to this thread.

 

[Swa]

LOL did you even read the court case?

This guy is swimming in money.

It seems posting links and court cases for you to read is a waste of my time as your mind was made up before the time and you don't have the ability or inclination to possibly consider a different version from the ones you made up.

With regards to 'reasonable burden' - you have no idea what you are talking about. Go study some tax law then come back to this thread.

I read the part you quoted. You did quote the pertinent part didn't you?

The guy WAS swimming in money and you also have a severe misunderstanding what proof entails wrt tax law. Proof is having a till slip, not a forensic expert that it's genuine. If Sars alleges it to be fake the onus falls on them to get an expert to prove it because you complied with your burden.

 

[Ancalagon]

She is number one highest paid prostitute in all of South Africa - great success!

 

[supersunbird]

LOL did you even read the court case?

This guy is swimming in money.

It seems posting links and court cases for you to read is a waste of my time as your mind was made up before the time and you don't have the ability or inclination to possibly consider a different version from the ones you made up.

With regards to 'reasonable burden' - you have no idea what you are talking about. Go study some tax law then come back to this thread.

Is this your first interaction with Swa? That's how Swa rolls.