[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
IzZzy said:
That is predicated on SANRAL sending a registered letter which they are not obliged to. AARTO =/ Etolls.

There is no duty on SANRAL to ensure you receive an invoice. They are only obliged to post it to your last known address.
Click to expand...

Do they not fall under the category of incidental credit provider by allowing post-payment? From Bentleylaw:

The definition of incidental credit is defined under Section 1 as:

“…an agreement, irrespective of its form, in terms of which an account was tendered for goods or services that have been provided to the consumer, or goods or services that are to be provided to a consumer over a period of time, and either or both of the following conditions apply:

a fee, charge or interest became payable when payment of an amount charged in terms of that account was not made on or before a determined period or date; or
two prices were quoted for settlement of the account, the lower price being applicable if the account is paid on or before a determined date, and the higher price being applicable due to the account not having been paid by that date;”
Now this section has to be read with Section 5(2) which reads as follows:

“The parties to an incidental credit agreement are deemed to have been made that agreement on the date that is 20 business days after –

the supplier of the goods or services that are subject of that account, first charges a late payment fee or interest in respect of that account; or
a pre-determined higher price for full settlement of the account first becomes applicable
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the phrasing could apply to Sanral if we agree that an e-tag is the equivalent of an early settlement, as that is precisely what it is. They only created such a system to secure revenue as a first port of call. Subsequent payments will always be categorised as late by virtue of how the system operates, and these payments incur a higher charge...
 
Last edited:
IzZzy said:
That is predicated on SANRAL sending a registered letter which they are not obliged to. AARTO =/ Etolls.

There is no duty on SANRAL to ensure you receive an invoice. They are only obliged to post it to your last known address.
Click to expand...

I understand that the author of that e-mail does not want to fall foul of the law, but I do wonder what his suggestions under point 5 were going to be ...
 
Jola said:
Would that be constitutional, SANRAL is clearly a credit provider ?
Click to expand...

Its an Act of Parliament saying another Act of Parliament doesn't apply to this one. Not sure how the Constitution would come into play.
 
IzZzy said:
No. The Transport Laws and Related Matters Act says the NCA does not apply to e-tolls.
Click to expand...

Is there basis in law for this exemption? Surely it must be based on sound reasoning as opposed to "just because"?
 
Tander said:
No that's incorrect.Helen Has publicly stated that they may not be able to scrap it.
Click to expand...

You do realize the difference between may not and won't? They will inherit the crap that the ANC has caused in Gauteng in the last 19 years, but inevitably the bills will still need to be repaid. The difference is that the DA can stop new **** from coming in while slowly sorting out the old ****. So they might not be able to scrap e-tolls immediately, but they will be able to repay it after a few years and then remove it.
 
I have figured out a golden plan though. And I think this should be brought to FF+'s attention:

FF+'s latest court case is based on arguing that the fact thata toll essentially equates to a tax, and if this is true the Transport Laws and Related Matters Act should have been tagged, and passed, as a money bill (which has a host of requirements which weren't complied with).

This is very interesting, and very clever. Obviously you can see that SANRAL and Treasury will argue that it is not a tax.

My counter to this is as follows (bear with me):

1) There are very limited instances in which you can be imprisoned for failing to pay your debts. Society at large has done away with debtors' prisons many moons ago. Typically, debt must be enforced and recovered through the debt collection (civil) procedures which involves, essentially, (1) ask debtor to pay; (2) get court order forcing debtor to pay; (3) ask sheriff to attach assets and sale assets to satisfy judgment OR (4) sequestrate / liquidate debtor if there aren't enough assets in the estate.


2) There used to be two exceptions to this rule: (1) avoiding or evading taxes ; and (2) arresting a person who is fleeing SA to avoid paying you: known as arrest tanquam suspectus de fuga.


3) The Constitutional Court in the Malachi v Cape Dance Academy case said, briefly, that the power to arrest someone for attempting to avoid paying a debt is not a limitation that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. In South Africa, taking our past into account, the right to dignity is paramount, sacrosanct - almost inviolable (this sentence is my words).


4) If we then decide to agree with Treasury and SANRAL that this does not constitute a tax (their own words, most likely) then on what basis can they use the power of arrest and jail to enforce payment and collection of etolls which then essentially constitutes a enforcement and collection of a civil debt (again, they would be forced to say its not a tax)?

Touche, mother****er.
 
Last edited:
IzZzy said:
I have figured out a golden plan though. And I think this should be brought to FF+'s attention:

FF+'s latest court case is based on arguing that the fact thata toll essentially equates to a tax, and if this is true the Transport Laws and Related Matters Act should have been tagged, and passed, as a money bill (which has a host of requirements which weren't complied with).

This is very interesting, and very clever. Obviously you can see that SANRAL and Treasury will argue that it is not a tax.

My counter to this is as follows (bear with me):

1) There are very limited instances in which you can be imprisoned for failing to pay your debts. Society at large has done away with debtors' prisons many moons ago. Typically, debt must be enforced and recovered through the debt collection (civil) procedures which involves, essentially, (1) ask debtor to pay; (2) get court order forcing debtor to pay; (3) ask sheriff to attach assets and sale assets to satisfy judgment OR (4) sequestrate / liquidate debtor if there aren't enough assets in the estate.


2) There used to be two exceptions to this rule: (1) avoiding or evading taxes ; and (2) arresting a person who is fleeing SA to avoid paying you: known as arrest tanquam suspectus de fuga.


3) The Constitutional Court in the Malachi v Cape Dance Academy case said, briefly, that the power to arrest someone for attempting to avoid paying a debt is not a limitation that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. In South Africa, taking our past into account, the right to dignity is paramount, sacrosanct - almost inviolable (this sentence is my words).


4) If we then decide to agree with Treasury and SANRAL that this does not constitute a tax (their own words, most likely) then on what basis can they use the power of arrest and jail to enforce payment and collection of etolls which then essentially constitutes a enforcement and collection of a civil debt (again, they would be forced to say its not a tax)?

Touche, mother****er.
Click to expand...

http://www.vfplus.org.za/kontak-ons

Please do. :)
 
I see that the FF+ will request its court application for an interdict against the implementation of e-tolls legislation be heard BEFORE 3 December.
 
IzZzy said:
I have figured out a golden plan though. And I think this should be brought to FF+'s attention:

FF+'s latest court case is based on arguing that the fact thata toll essentially equates to a tax, and if this is true the Transport Laws and Related Matters Act should have been tagged, and passed, as a money bill (which has a host of requirements which weren't complied with).

This is very interesting, and very clever. Obviously you can see that SANRAL and Treasury will argue that it is not a tax.

My counter to this is as follows (bear with me):

1) There are very limited instances in which you can be imprisoned for failing to pay your debts. Society at large has done away with debtors' prisons many moons ago. Typically, debt must be enforced and recovered through the debt collection (civil) procedures which involves, essentially, (1) ask debtor to pay; (2) get court order forcing debtor to pay; (3) ask sheriff to attach assets and sale assets to satisfy judgment OR (4) sequestrate / liquidate debtor if there aren't enough assets in the estate.


2) There used to be two exceptions to this rule: (1) avoiding or evading taxes ; and (2) arresting a person who is fleeing SA to avoid paying you: known as arrest tanquam suspectus de fuga.


3) The Constitutional Court in the Malachi v Cape Dance Academy case said, briefly, that the power to arrest someone for attempting to avoid paying a debt is not a limitation that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. In South Africa, taking our past into account, the right to dignity is paramount, sacrosanct - almost inviolable (this sentence is my words).


4) If we then decide to agree with Treasury and SANRAL that this does not constitute a tax (their own words, most likely) then on what basis can they use the power of arrest and jail to enforce payment and collection of etolls which then essentially constitutes a enforcement and collection of a civil debt (again, they would be forced to say its not a tax)?

Touche, mother****er.
Click to expand...

That's awesome. There's another angle to this too, and although my source is wiki, it is cited properly:

Tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. According to Black's Law Dictionary, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."

1 - failure to pay e-tolls is punishable by law, meeting the first definition.
2 - It meets the second definition spot-on, tolls are specifically cited as an example of a tax

We can even use the Investopedia definition:

An involuntary fee levied on corporations or individuals that is enforced by a level of government in order to finance government activities.

Check, once again.

By every definition it meets the criteria for a tax.

And then for the icing on the cake - tolls incurred in business travel are tax deductible, are they not? An implicit agreement that tolls equate to tax, surely? And is the VAT portion not deductible for VAT registered companies? What does this mean for their classification as taxes?
 
DJ... said:
./snip
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I really do think it is a tax. It is plain as day a tax. My plan is only to be waived as an alternate claim should SANRAL / Treasury say it isn't.

In either case, they are check-mated.
 
On the topic of the e-Tolls being a tax; how does the fact that you are not (technically) forced to use the road affect that? Could they then argue that it is thus not a tax because it is voluntary and the incidental credit akin to a fine and not for a service provided?
 
Remember people it starts from the 3rd of December so hurry and get your E-tag.
People have been standing in this long line from this morning hahahahahaha ‪#‎fail‬

Picture_1470191_10202620266294555_146248640_n.jpg
 
CR34M3 said:
On the topic of the e-Tolls being a tax; how does the fact that you are not (technically) forced to use the road affect that? Could they then argue that it is thus not a tax because it is voluntary and the incidental credit akin to a fine and not for a service provided?
Click to expand...

They've come out and admitted that the road infrastructure that they are tolling is crucial to the economy of SA. That rules it out of being voluntary as far as I'm concerned...
 
CR34M3 said:
On the topic of the e-Tolls being a tax; how does the fact that you are not (technically) forced to use the road affect that? Could they then argue that it is thus not a tax because it is voluntary and the incidental credit akin to a fine and not for a service provided?
Click to expand...

We have a different understanding of voluntary. My understanding is that it is not voluntary: if I use the road, I have to pay the toll. I do not have an option not to pay the toll. Just as if you buy a product (whether or not you may choose to buy that product), you will have to pay VAT.
 
IzZzy said:
We have a different understanding of voluntary. My understanding is that it is not voluntary: if I use the road, I have to pay the toll. I do not have an option not to pay the toll. Just as if you buy a product (whether or not you may choose to buy that product), you will have to pay VAT.
Click to expand...
While I understand completely where you come from, what is the legal precedent regarding this? As per your example, VAT remains a non-issue until I buy something and the act of buying is definitely voluntary. How is causality (for lack of a better word) treated in this case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X