Dear Forum Members

I understand perfectly the SARS point of view thing, and it makes sense. But there are some cosmetic procedures that are allowed, some that are not done by cosmetic surgeons per se, for eg orthodontists, various types of dental surgery, reconstructive surgery, the example you gave with the breast reduction etc. All I want is a clear policy of what is allowed and what not, and whether you are allowed to include some form of motivation/justification. If breast augmentation in general is not allowed for deduction, and I can read it somewhere then fine, because although I do not expect it to be allowable, I need to show her some sort of evidence as to why not other that just "but the medical fund did not pay for it, so why should SARS allow it" or "because it just is like it". That last bit you said obviously makes me biased :p, but not because I think it should be allowed, but rater because if you look at the laws and guidelines, it should be allowed.
 
Stefanmuller said:
I understand perfectly the SARS point of view thing, and it makes sense. But there are some cosmetic procedures that are allowed, some that are not done by cosmetic surgeons per se, for eg orthodontists, various types of dental surgery, reconstructive surgery, the example you gave with the breast reduction etc. All I want is a clear policy of what is allowed and what not, and whether you are allowed to include some form of motivation/justification. If breast augmentation in general is not allowed for deduction, and I can read it somewhere then fine, because although I do not expect it to be allowable, I need to show her some sort of evidence as to why not other that just "but the medical fund did not pay for it, so why should SARS allow it" or "because it just is like it". That last bit you said obviously makes me biased :p, but not because I think it should be allowed, but rater because if you look at the laws and guidelines, it should be allowed.
Click to expand...

of course, if the medical fund pays for it, you would never have the need to claim it...
 
SiriS said:
of course, if the medical fund pays for it, you would never have the need to claim it...
Click to expand...

But just because the medical aid does not pay for it, does not mean that SARS won't allow it either. Some medical aids don't pay for chronic medication, but SARS does. I just find it strange that section 18 and other tax guides does not clearly make reference to cosmetic surgery in general, and that you can't find anything about it by Googling, and nothing on SARS website, and not even the call centre people seem to know....

But in plinciple if using logical thinking I am not surprised that it is not allowed (to be expected), but if you look at the law (a 18), then there is nothing in there that disqualifies it. And where do you draw the line within the broad spectrum of cosmetic procedures?
 
I'm being hard-ass about it at the moment, I won't lie....but as I said, show me the policy then. I did not tweak an eyelash when the medical fund did not allow the procedure, because it clearly states in its claims section that they do not cover breast augmentation.

So, when did you decide working at an audit firm was not for you?
 
this is what i have been trying to tell you all along. although you all read the income tax act, there are office policies that are set regarding certain procedures. this is one instance where you can now see what i am trying to say. i tell you it won't be allowed because x,y and z and no one believes me, people will rather sit there and say i am above everything and the law. it is not, it is the practice which is set by the law department of SARS, while one can read and interpret the act, one needs to go further and say, what is allowable, what can and cannot be claimed, what is deemed what is not deemed. it is a complicated mess that's all.
so while you all sit on the outside looking in, i give you the information you seek, rather just listen and take heed.
the same with the rental issue. it's about to come out now - the intention and the renting to relatives issue. only then will people believe me.
 
Stefanmuller said:
So, when did you decide working at an audit firm was not for you?
Click to expand...

From the beginning really. I always knew that doing articles would be a means to an end, not an end itself. I was never really interested in auditing. Great experience and all that, but I left immediately after my article term (3 years).

Are you still deciding?
 
Celine said:
this is what i have been trying to tell you all along. although you all read the income tax act, there are office policies that are set regarding certain procedures. this is one instance where you can now see what i am trying to say. i tell you it won't be allowed because x,y and z and no one believes me, people will rather sit there and say i am above everything and the law. it is not, it is the practice which is set by the law department of SARS, while one can read and interpret the act, one needs to go further and say, what is allowable, what can and cannot be claimed, what is deemed what is not deemed. it is a complicated mess that's all.
so while you all sit on the outside looking in, i give you the information you seek, rather just listen and take heed.
the same with the rental issue. it's about to come out now - the intention and the renting to relatives issue. only then will people believe me.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of robust debate Celine? There is a reason thousands of auditors and tax professionals make a living. Precisely because it is complicated and open to interpretation. You can bet your bottom dollar that SARS will 99.9% of the time interpret the act in their favour. The point then of tax experts is to find a way to allow the deduction (interpret it in the tax payer's favour) - within the ambit of the Income tax Act. In other words tax avoidance (not evasion)- which is every tax payer's right.
 
SiriS said:
Isn't that the point of robust debate Celine? There is a reason thousands of auditors and tax professionals make a living. Precisely because it is complicated and open to interpretation. You can bet your bottom dollar that SARS will 99.9% of the time interpret the act in their favour. The point then of tax experts is to find a way to allow the deduction (interpret it in the tax payer's favour) - within the ambit of the Income tax Act. In other words tax avoidance (not evasion)- which is every tax payer's right.
Click to expand...

this is exactly it siris. the point is that people - as in the tax professionals like yourself and others think along those lines, just like stefan did with the medical case thinking that it is an allowable deduction because it was legitimately paid for, then along comes SARS auditor and says no they not going to allow it because of the policies set in place etc and so forth. but that's not only the case, these rules are also decided in court cases. so in most cases the assessor or auditor must refer back to a ruling set by a court case and doesn't matter how far back. it could be as far back as 1930 and it will still be standing. if a judge has made a decision then no one can sway from that ruling.
 
SiriS said:
From the beginning really. I always knew that doing articles would be a means to an end, not an end itself. I was never really interested in auditing. Great experience and all that, but I left immediately after my article term (3 years).

Are you still deciding?
Click to expand...

I finished my articles in Jan this year ( 4years) and doing my hounours this year while still at the same small firm. I want to get out but I think it will be better to stay in practice in order for my studies and if I want to become a CA. Working and studying is tough though, especially because it is not my first choice of career (wanted to do medicine but could not get in even after doing B.Sc and Psychology Hons) so i have been studying
for ten years straight almost. Also I think once you go out you will never go back and it will be more difficult to get CA and study outside of practice. Its just so boring and the pay is not great though.
 
Unless Sars can point me to a practice note, some policy or even just some writing confirming that it is not allowed, do you think I should object the assessment? At the moment the it34 is all I have, no explanation or notice about the procedure not being allowed. It is as if they just took all the supporting docs and forgot to add that one.
 
Celine, please excuse my ignorance and forwardness, but why are you making a stink about this? Just say no. No need for a thread telling people that you're not going to help them. Just buy a T-shirt that says so - or put it in your sig.

Try considering what it's like in the day of an IT techie or electrical engineer/electrician...

Everyone wants their computers/tv's/gatemotors/VCRs/remotes/geysers/printers/lights fixed for free. Always, not just around tax season. We don't go to their houses and ask for free *****.
 
Voicy said:
Celine, please excuse my ignorance and forwardness, but why are you making a stink about this? Just say no. No need for a thread telling people that you're not going to help them. Just buy a T-shirt that says so - or put it in your sig.

Try considering what it's like in the day of an IT techie or electrical engineer/electrician...

Everyone wants their computers/tv's/gatemotors/VCRs/remotes/geysers/printers/lights fixed for free. Always, not just around tax season. We don't go to their houses and ask for free *****.
Click to expand...

it's not that voicy - it's the fact that i give the advise willingly and kindly and then i have those who don't know anything challenge me on anything and everything. if you go look at some of the threads where some people ask stuff i answer and then someone butts in and decides to quote some section of the act and tells the person to do as SARS says. i have already told people here that i worked for SARS blah blah blah and i was willing to assist where i could. but when you get this sort of thing don't you think you would also eventually get annoyed.
i don't usually blow my horn BUT ! TOOT! lol
 
Celine,

Just ignore the idiots. If someone says something otherwise and people want to follow their advice so be it. It's not your problem. The majority of people on these forums appreciate good advice, the rest deserve to pay in :D
 
Celine said:
this is exactly it siris. the point is that people - as in the tax professionals like yourself and others think along those lines, just like stefan did with the medical case thinking that it is an allowable deduction because it was legitimately paid for, then along comes SARS auditor and says no they not going to allow it because of the policies set in place etc and so forth. but that's not only the case, these rules are also decided in court cases. so in most cases the assessor or auditor must refer back to a ruling set by a court case and doesn't matter how far back. it could be as far back as 1930 and it will still be standing. if a judge has made a decision then no one can sway from that ruling.
Click to expand...

I get it. But have you considered that people would like to understand the WHY, not just get the HOW? Not all of us are sheep, some of us would like to actually understand the reasoning behind how SARS deals with certain issues, to learn in the process and analyse it in terms of our own understanding. It's not a personal attack on you when someone queries a remark/opinion/advice, it is the process of reconciling one's own opinion with a different one - and hopefully in the process getting the best result for the tax payer, and learning something new. It is entirely possible to be more/less clever when dealing with SARS - and to be more clever than them. As I said before, robust debate is a good thing. There is no need to get your back up every time someone doesn't take your advice at face value. Either tell them to FO, ignore them or join the debate!

And I'm no tax professional...

OK, I'm done placating that volatile temper of yours...:p:D
 
Stefanmuller said:
I finished my articles in Jan this year ( 4years) and doing my hounours this year while still at the same small firm. I want to get out but I think it will be better to stay in practice in order for my studies and if I want to become a CA. Working and studying is tough though, especially because it is not my first choice of career (wanted to do medicine but could not get in even after doing B.Sc and Psychology Hons) so i have been studying
for ten years straight almost. Also I think once you go out you will never go back and it will be more difficult to get CA and study outside of practice. Its just so boring and the pay is not great though.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I recall now from a previous thread. I would definitely stay at the firm until you've completed your board exams. The environment is much more condusive towards studying en completing your CA. I feel your pain, crap salaries and boring to boot! IMHO a small firm gives you a very nice bird's eye view of business, tax etc. - invaluable if you would like to pursue business opportunities later.
 
siris sometimes one cannot questions SARS and their policies. as far as they are concerned rules are rules and that is that.
let me tell you what i did when i was in the tax directives dept years ago, in the mid 90's, i ignored the supervisors rules hehehe. those years a married woman was allowed to apply for a tax directive and be taxed as a bread winner, but before she could be taxed as a married man she had to bring in heaps of paper work. me, i felt sorry for these women, so i would just issue the tax directive. come on how many men were legitimately unemployed all i needed to see was the UIF card i didn't need to see heaps of papers. oh i got into trouble and got a written warning....but i didn't care.
so you see when people ask for an explanation i.e. stefan's one about the breast enhancement claim in medical, one just has to go with SARS' flow and accept. or you can always object and appeal.
and another thing, you say you not a tax person, phah you could have fooled me buddy, you know a lot of tax stuff. high five.
 
Celine said:
siris sometimes one cannot questions SARS and their policies. as far as they are concerned rules are rules and that is that.
let me tell you what i did when i was in the tax directives dept years ago, in the mid 90's, i ignored the supervisors rules hehehe. those years a married woman was allowed to apply for a tax directive and be taxed as a bread winner, but before she could be taxed as a married man she had to bring in heaps of paper work. me, i felt sorry for these women, so i would just issue the tax directive. come on how many men were legitimately unemployed all i needed to see was the UIF card i didn't need to see heaps of papers. oh i got into trouble and got a written warning....but i didn't care.
so you see when people ask for an explanation i.e. stefan's one about the breast enhancement claim in medical, one just has to go with SARS' flow and accept. or you can always object and appeal.
and another thing, you say you not a tax person, phah you could have fooled me buddy, you know a lot of tax stuff. high five.
Click to expand...

Celine, I know I am being stuck up about the whole plastic surgery thing.

To be honest: At first I did not think SARS would allow the claim (just using common sense). Then I went and did some research and could not find anything that clearly states that plastic surgery is not deductable. In fact, I could not find anything anywhere, almost as if plastic surgery does not exist and no one in the history of man ever tried to claim it. So, I proceeded to claim it. Obviously, plastic surgery is not cheap, so the medical claim for this year was a lot more than last year, so no surprise that they asked for supporting docs after issuing the first assessment and granting the claim. Here I should have just made a summary of the medical expenses, but I thought that, when they see the summary and see one big expense, they are going to ask for that invoice anyways, so I just sent everything. Back comes the assessment and it differs with exactly that expense. So obviously they did not allow it, but they did not say anything about it or let me know that they did not allow it. I had to figure it out myself (it was obvious, but someone else might not have known where the difference is). So now I tell her that they won't allow it because it is cosmetic, but I have nothing to show her to clarify that, except for the assessment that might well have been a mistake on SARS side, how would you know if I really get technical here. And no one can show me anything, other tax people (one of which used to represent SARS in court back in the days when you could still bargain with SARS) seem to think that you should be able to, even the SARS call centre.

I have little doubt that you are indeed 100% correct, but I just need the official explanation. And on what grounds exactly they decide. That is all. Don't you know somebody at SARS that can clarify?
 
Celine said:
it's actually people like you that have made me decide enough is enough. i have given advise from being an actual assessor and auditor at SARS and how things work and you and the likes want to argue.
cheers have a nice life.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I said

Acts + Courts > Sars assessors

I cannot fathom how, with your experience and knowledge you have to revert to ad hominem attacks instead of just addressing the questions that people such as myself have put in front of you. If it is true that I am interpreting the act incorrectly then surely you should be able to point to court cases or other portions of the act indicating why/what I'm doing wrong. Instead you insult people and stick to 'I worked at SARS therefore I know best' type of answers.

If your advice cannot be confirmed by independent and published information, I dont see why you get upset when people question it? Would you take advice that, on the face of it, clearly conflicts with the published acts?

Look, I'm not saying that all the advice you've given is wrong(most of it isnt), but when some of it appears to be, and you wont or cant defend it with something better than "because I say so", my BS detector lights up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X