Multichoice vs SARS: DStv decoder dispute resolved

Wow, all the legal speak, what will the effect be on my pocket as a DSTV subscriber when I buy a new decoder?
 
Well from what I see, the device is ruled primarily as a reception device even though it can provide other services. According to the law, the tax is only applicable on devices that receive a TV signal. This should mean that the decoder is going to receive additional tax.

It's seems similar to the new TV/LCD monitor with tuner tax that came into effect, if not one and the same thing.
 
Back to journalism school for this one...

1) What actually was the decision?
2) What is the consequence for Multichoice and its customers?
 
ajax said:
Wow, all the legal speak, what will the effect be on my pocket as a DSTV subscriber when I buy a new decoder?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Thanks for the piece FvR, but as a media piece it is a fail. I am not totally ignorant of legal speak, but had to read everything three times.
"Contra fiscum" and "ad valorum" should be properly explained or just left out totally.

My understanding is that SARS my now charge the 7%. What bothers me about the legislation then, is that the tax can now levied twice in an effort to get only one picture on your screen!
 
Skerminkel said:
Agreed.

Thanks for the piece FvR, but as a media piece it is a fail. I am not totally ignorant of legal speak, but had to read everything three times.
"Contra fiscum" and "ad valorum" should be properly explained or just left out totally.

My understanding is that SARS my now charge the 7%. What bothers me about the legislation then, is that the tax can now levied twice in an effort to get only one picture on your screen!
Click to expand...

And i thought all this meant that they Cant charge the 7 %... just proves how confusing this article is. Any lawyers around to retype this article for the "normal people"
 
Curious what 0.1% of people use there decoder for if not for being a decoder :)
 
Buzybuy said:
How about first getting a PVR that works correctly.
Click to expand...

+1. Having paid the thousands for the device, one would expect it to work. Having the updates are nice, BUT updates that take forever to come out, and that are unstable is not on.

How about getting someone involved on the project that wants to see it work in the end?
 
Terible Article

Terrible article: Badly composed, this as it provides the reader with no valuable detail at all.... let alone a summary
that would help the reader decipher the legal language.
 
What a confusing article. We are paying income tax, business tax, duty tax....... we are being ripped off
 
Ohmylol, don't try to convince the Supreme Court of Appeals to rule in your favour on something so easily distinguished from magic. This is a pay-TV decoder. Anyone and everyone and their dog knows that. Of course the court is correct.
 
This from the court papers:
The factual difference between the parties that underlies their dispute stems from the nature of the decoder. The Commissioner contends that its primary nature is a television reception apparatus, despite other functions it may be able to perform. UEC on the other hand, regards it as a multi-functional apparatus of which not one function could be singled out as primary. The Commissioner classified the decoder on 10 March 2005 under Tariff Heading 8528.12.90 ('reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio broadcast receivers or sound recording or reproducing apparatus').
Click to expand...

Multichoice was one of the appellants and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Looking at the above it is indicative of their business practices that they would try and argue the above.

UEC conceded that the decoder receives satellite television broadcasts; its case is that this is not the decoder's principal function.
Click to expand...

I would the assume it's principal function is to relieve customers from their hard earned cash every month?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X