No, SARS only prescribe after 30 years iirc
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
SARS. Help Please.
- Thread starter Mila
- Start date
No, SARS only prescribe after 30 years iirc
Yes, prescription of tax debt is 30 years...
Mila
Honorary Master
More than two years.
Threats from SARS
Extortion tactics from SARS
Slimy Scaly Dealings from SARS
Side Note SARS do indeed "sell" old debt that they can't collect to debt collectors that then try all kinds of shady things to make you pay money you do not owe SARS.
WE WON!!! SUCK THAT!!
They couldn't show us where the debt comes from.
It has been written off.
Now lets hope they don't wait 5 years and activate the debt again.
But for now nobody is taking my mom's home, and that is 82 thousand less some corrupt ******* can spend on new shoes.
SUCK IT!!!!
Threats from SARS
Extortion tactics from SARS
Slimy Scaly Dealings from SARS
Side Note SARS do indeed "sell" old debt that they can't collect to debt collectors that then try all kinds of shady things to make you pay money you do not owe SARS.
WE WON!!! SUCK THAT!!
They couldn't show us where the debt comes from.
It has been written off.
Now lets hope they don't wait 5 years and activate the debt again.
But for now nobody is taking my mom's home, and that is 82 thousand less some corrupt ******* can spend on new shoes.
SUCK IT!!!!
MickeyD
RIP
Well done, Ginger Warrior!!
biometrics
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 71,856
- Reaction score
- 2,239
Excellent!
Mila
Honorary Master
Thank you.
We stuck it out. Just refused to sign any for of admission of guilt or pay any amounts.
Feels fantastic.
We stuck it out. Just refused to sign any for of admission of guilt or pay any amounts.
Feels fantastic.
I underpaid SARS by R150K with trading stocks on the JSE from 5 years ago. At the time I thought that if you do not remit the money into into your pocket, I thought it was all good with SARS. How wrong I was.
I re did all my returns and went to SARS with all the forms admitting to my mistake. They told me that it had subscribed and could do nothing.
I re did all my returns and went to SARS with all the forms admitting to my mistake. They told me that it had subscribed and could do nothing.
airborne
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 28,454
- Reaction score
- 14,742
There must have been another reason, if you legitimately owe them money no matter the time frame they want it?
MickeyD
RIP
Hemi300c
Honorary Master
Yip you right.
Do not read articles from Drum magazine. Look at SAIT and SARS websites. All my 5 years of re done tax papers were stamped with "PRESCRIBED" stamp and signed.
The prescription period of three years is dealt with in clause 99. A disadvantage to the taxpayer is that:
The period of three years has been extended to five years for self-assessment taxes.
In the case of a self-assessment that was a misrepresentation (intentionally or negligently) or was the intentional or negligent non-disclosure of material facts, the matter can be re-opened after five years have passed. This means that mere negligence will be sufficient to cause a taxpayer to lose the prescription period of five years.
The 30 year prescription was for fixed property CGT and is outdated.
TAX ADMINISTRATION 2195. Prescription APRIL 2013 – ISSUE 163
The coming into force of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) has brought the issue of prescription into sharp focus. There are two reasons why this is so: firstly, the standard prescription period of three years has been extended to five years for ‘self-assessments’, and secondly the assessment returns seem to require only limited disclosure and taxpayers are left wondering whether the limited disclosure affords them the prescription protection they need.
The reason for the extension of the basic period of prescription from three to five years is to accommodate the system of self-assessment. In light of the fact that the bulk of current assessments are completed on a ‘self-assessment’ basis, SARS requires a longer period in which to interrogate and audit the assessment. Self-assessments require no thought process from an assessor; they are simply captured by the SARS computer system, and theoretically could run the course through to prescription without any intervention in the form of a revenue official applying his mind. Prior to the e-filing self-assessment era, all income tax returns were subject to an assessment of sorts by an assessor whose job it was to identify and query anything problematic. That no longer applies and SARS requires a longer period to enable them to run risk assessment programs or analytics on returns which should identify potentially contentious issues and leave them time to query and reassess where necessary.
The TAA specifically defines a ‘self-assessment’, which on the face of it, gives rise to a surprising result since income tax returns would not constitute ‘self-assessments’ as defined, since self-assessments require a determination of the tax due whereas income tax returns, for companies and individuals, do not require any such determination. On that basis, these returns, not being self-assessments, would be subject to the three year rather than the five year prescription rules.
Whether the three to five year prescription rule applies, the protection afforded by prescription is extremely important for all taxpayers and indeed for SARS too. Taxpayers, who have made full and complete disclosure, are entitled to know that at some point they are beyond the stress of a SARS audit, and SARS needs to ensure that its system highlights and red-flags for query and audit, all those returns which warrant such attention, prior to the prescription period expiring.
In order for this system to work, it is clear that comprehensive and accurate disclosure on well-designed tax returns is critical. Oddly, the standard company tax return remains relatively abbreviated and one would expect in future, for example, a more comprehensive list of questions which would be required to be completed. The e-filing system does not require the submission of supporting schedules or even financial statements – these must simply be prepared and retained on file – so the taxpayer actually has limited opportunity for disclosure even should he wish to disclose more than the return demands. What happens, for example, when a taxpayer claims as a deduction an item which is not separately disclosed on the return, in a situation where the deductibility is somewhat debatable (as frequently happens in tax matters)? One option would be to retain an opinion on file supporting the claim, but that is not always practical. While the system of return disclosure remains in its current imperfect state, it is inevitable that disputes will arise with taxpayers claiming prescription on the one hand, while SARS on the other contests items on returns that have nominally prescribed. Some legal precedent on this question involving a dispute on an assessment in the e-filing era would be particularly helpful.
Ernst & Young
TAA: Section 1 Definition of ‘self-assessment’
The coming into force of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) has brought the issue of prescription into sharp focus. There are two reasons why this is so: firstly, the standard prescription period of three years has been extended to five years for ‘self-assessments’, and secondly the assessment returns seem to require only limited disclosure and taxpayers are left wondering whether the limited disclosure affords them the prescription protection they need.
The reason for the extension of the basic period of prescription from three to five years is to accommodate the system of self-assessment. In light of the fact that the bulk of current assessments are completed on a ‘self-assessment’ basis, SARS requires a longer period in which to interrogate and audit the assessment. Self-assessments require no thought process from an assessor; they are simply captured by the SARS computer system, and theoretically could run the course through to prescription without any intervention in the form of a revenue official applying his mind. Prior to the e-filing self-assessment era, all income tax returns were subject to an assessment of sorts by an assessor whose job it was to identify and query anything problematic. That no longer applies and SARS requires a longer period to enable them to run risk assessment programs or analytics on returns which should identify potentially contentious issues and leave them time to query and reassess where necessary.
The TAA specifically defines a ‘self-assessment’, which on the face of it, gives rise to a surprising result since income tax returns would not constitute ‘self-assessments’ as defined, since self-assessments require a determination of the tax due whereas income tax returns, for companies and individuals, do not require any such determination. On that basis, these returns, not being self-assessments, would be subject to the three year rather than the five year prescription rules.
Whether the three to five year prescription rule applies, the protection afforded by prescription is extremely important for all taxpayers and indeed for SARS too. Taxpayers, who have made full and complete disclosure, are entitled to know that at some point they are beyond the stress of a SARS audit, and SARS needs to ensure that its system highlights and red-flags for query and audit, all those returns which warrant such attention, prior to the prescription period expiring.
In order for this system to work, it is clear that comprehensive and accurate disclosure on well-designed tax returns is critical. Oddly, the standard company tax return remains relatively abbreviated and one would expect in future, for example, a more comprehensive list of questions which would be required to be completed. The e-filing system does not require the submission of supporting schedules or even financial statements – these must simply be prepared and retained on file – so the taxpayer actually has limited opportunity for disclosure even should he wish to disclose more than the return demands. What happens, for example, when a taxpayer claims as a deduction an item which is not separately disclosed on the return, in a situation where the deductibility is somewhat debatable (as frequently happens in tax matters)? One option would be to retain an opinion on file supporting the claim, but that is not always practical. While the system of return disclosure remains in its current imperfect state, it is inevitable that disputes will arise with taxpayers claiming prescription on the one hand, while SARS on the other contests items on returns that have nominally prescribed. Some legal precedent on this question involving a dispute on an assessment in the e-filing era would be particularly helpful.
Ernst & Young
TAA: Section 1 Definition of ‘self-assessment’
No. Only 2 were stamped as "Prescribed" as they were older than 3 years and the other 3 were stamped "Invalid" due to the previous ones being prescribed.
I just had a strange feeling that I was dealing with normal tax accountants or bookkeepers and they no knowledge or wish to go through my 5 years of tax returns that was so complex with trading stocks. The person I was dealing with kept asking for advice from the guy next to her and he kept saying "it has prescribed".
Typical SARS employee attitude.
Exactly what I have and many others have experienced from them.
Never in the wrong, extortion, etc.
So what did you have to do to prove them wrong?
Also, how did they not take your Mom's paychecks? (they usually just take. You know SARS never makes any mistakes right? I mean look at the classic attitude of their employees. SARS is best)
Mila
Honorary Master
After being on her way to see an advocate to draw up papers that states that she still doesn't admit to owning them money but are willing to pay money so that they don't claim her house ( that was the threats ) I found a tax consultant that worked for SARS and ABSA that listened. Properly. Said he will look at everything. And after he looked at all the paper work. Said he hates them and will take it on. He told us that the people threatening my mom wasn't SARS, but the people SARS sold the debt to.
He got them to withdraw, but he has also warned us that SARS has an policy that gives them the right to always re open any case.
it comes down to that no reasonable person ( a legal term) can be expected to pay debt that SARS can't proof. So if they can manufacture evidence from 1992 they can reopen the case.
They can't take money if you don't agree to the amount. The lady in payroll also demanded a letter from SARS. It's Limpopo everything takes a bit longer... So that didn't happen. At one point my mom had a lawyer write a letter that stated she doesn't admit to anything and if they are black mailing her for money they can take R3 a month because that is what she can afford.
It was a cat and mouse game in which we out played them and layered on the paper work.
The main thing was never signing an admission of guilt and never paying a cent, they see payment as an admission of guilt.
She also never got to lay an official objection, because if you read the terms and conditions it says somewhere that you have to sign an admission of guilt before you can lay an objection.
If ever thee was crooks running our countries money. They are the biggest.
Violating the rights of citizens they are suppose to protect.
I will as far as possible not pay one cent to them.
If you want to I can get all the details from the tax guy.
He got them to withdraw, but he has also warned us that SARS has an policy that gives them the right to always re open any case.
it comes down to that no reasonable person ( a legal term) can be expected to pay debt that SARS can't proof. So if they can manufacture evidence from 1992 they can reopen the case.
They can't take money if you don't agree to the amount. The lady in payroll also demanded a letter from SARS. It's Limpopo everything takes a bit longer... So that didn't happen. At one point my mom had a lawyer write a letter that stated she doesn't admit to anything and if they are black mailing her for money they can take R3 a month because that is what she can afford.
It was a cat and mouse game in which we out played them and layered on the paper work.
The main thing was never signing an admission of guilt and never paying a cent, they see payment as an admission of guilt.
She also never got to lay an official objection, because if you read the terms and conditions it says somewhere that you have to sign an admission of guilt before you can lay an objection.
If ever thee was crooks running our countries money. They are the biggest.
Violating the rights of citizens they are suppose to protect.
I will as far as possible not pay one cent to them.
If you want to I can get all the details from the tax guy.
I cannot accentuate this enough, but if you are told that you owe money, NEVER agree if you are even unsure. Debt must be paid but once you agree to the debt or make one payment into it, your prescription expires.
Debt collectors have devious methods to con you into un prescribing a debt. They might tell you that the debt you are paying into ABSA has changed to FNB with a new account number. Once you pay your next installment into it, they tell you that have un prescribed another debt from for instance , Edgars that you forgot about 10 years ago. Now you will have 2.
Of interest is this. There is a college in JHB that teach debt collector henchmen on how to con victims to admit to debt. Google it.
Debt collectors have devious methods to con you into un prescribing a debt. They might tell you that the debt you are paying into ABSA has changed to FNB with a new account number. Once you pay your next installment into it, they tell you that have un prescribed another debt from for instance , Edgars that you forgot about 10 years ago. Now you will have 2.
Of interest is this. There is a college in JHB that teach debt collector henchmen on how to con victims to admit to debt. Google it.